In their brief, the bishops and ACI argue that the summary judgment ruling by the trial court in the Fort Worth litigation violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution because it immersed the court in an impermissible “searching” and “extensive inquiry into religious polity.” Under the Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence, courts may constitutionally defer to a church authority rather than apply neutral principles of law only if they can identify the appropriate ecclesiastical authority without conducting such an extensive inquiry into church governance. In the case of The Episcopal Church, its governing constitution specifies that the diocesan bishop is “the Ecclesiastical Authority” in the diocese. Acceptance of TEC’s claim that there are other bodies or offices with hierarchical supremacy over the diocesan bishop would require the Court to become embroiled in a searching historical analysis of difficult questions of church polity without any explicit language in the church’s governing instrument on which to base its conclusion. The First Amendment does not permit such a result.

The amicus curiae brief can be read here

The moment, however, does provide a good opportunity to rethink and restate what conservative Anglicans like myself, who have remained in The Episcopal Church, are really after. It’s worth reminding ourselves of our goals. I speak only for myself here, of course; although I imagine my views are shared by many. And what it comes down to is this: what we want is to be left alone, canonically and legally, to witness to the Gospel in worship, teaching, and deed in hope of God’s truth in Christ triumphing over our divisions and disobedience.

This is not a complicated desire really. But it seems to be deeply misunderstood. Some traditional Anglicans who have left TEC seem to think that our staying is a form of treason with regards to the truth (and their own needs). I have little to say on this front, other than that I consider the witness of our Lord with respect to his own people and his own troubled apostles sufficient justification for our choice to stay. God gave himself to the godless – and we must include ourselves and our churches in this latter category as much as anybody.

There are others who seem to think that, given our rejection of the gay agenda of TEC and elsewhere, our larger desire embodies a coercive homophobia and a will to destroy TEC from within. It is worth briefly saying something here, since these critics are in fact those with whom we often share a local church.

On the first matter, such coercive antipathy has never been the case, unless of course one defines a rejection of the inclusive gay agenda as ipso facto homophobic and oppressive. Many progressives have in fact set in motion a zero-sum game of tolerance by reducing the Gospel to an application of the justice of human rights. Having done so, however, what then has been the point of any discussion and discernment in the first place? For with such a definition, there are no minds to be “changed”, only silenced.

Still, we have never sought to excommunicate self-identified gay members of the church. Rather, we have resisted the claim that individual priests, bishops and the General Convention can enact changes in the traditional teaching of the Church catholic on this matter by legislative majority voting, let alone by individual fiat. These are instead matters that demand engaged consensus, founded on agreed Scriptural teaching. Such a consensus was always impossible, however, once permission was granted to ignore teaching and discipline before decisions were ever made together, both in TEC and in the Communion. The longer this contradiction between practice and actual consensual decision-making was permitted, the more irrelevant and indeed destructive of common life many ecclesial structures of TEC and the Communion became. That was hardly the fault of conservative Episcopalians!

And that is one of the reasons we have been committed to upholding the traditional Episcopal polity of diocesan sovereignty with respect to General Convention: i.e. that dioceses and their bishops have the power to remove themselves from General Convention and that the decisions of Convention are subject locally to diocesan ratification. This is not an “anti-TEC” outlook; it is, rather, a considered understanding of what TEC and its members are about and how we are organized for our mission. In the end, we realize that such a diocese-based polity is profoundly incomplete: it makes sense only to the degree that dioceses and their bishops engage one another in the work of apostolic witness, understood in its traditional catechetical and evangelistic accountabilities. In theory, the House of Bishops and General Convention were meant to serve such common apostolic practice, but the opposite has happened, as legislative processes controlled by politically-organized interest groups have short-circuited the mutual restraint, consultation, and finally patience – understood literally – of common life. We have no desire to destroy TEC; rather we want to see our common life strengthened on the basis of the apostolic trust our church was given and for which we are responsible. And to do that, we need the uncontested space, within the national church and also within dioceses, in which to let our ministries function honestly.

Given this general desire, let me speak more positively to some of the commitments a conservative Episcopalian like myself will hold, insofar as they might inform the coming discussions that are rushing towards us from the horizon of the Communion’s volatile condition.

Synodality

The word “synodality” refers simply to “walking together”, as along a “single way”. And a “synod” – the “way together” — is a formalized space for focusing such a practice by Christians. It is not first of all a decision-making – or a legislative – gathering. It is rather the place where the ongoing character of Christian common life is reiterated, articulated, strengthened, and directed. Hence, synods are not about making rules, in the first place, but about finding ways to discern the common mission of the Church in a manner that is faithful to the Lord whom together we follow as disciples. The Lambeth Conference is appropriately called a “synod” in this regard. And all the debate over the 1998 Lambeth I.10 resolution was appropriately a part of its synodality, neither to be taken as a “law”, nor to be dismissed or ignored or avoided as an irrelevance. General Convention is also appropriately called a “synod” in this sense, if – as with any gathering – its purposes are rightly pursued.

Synodality is essential to the church because of the nature of the Church as the Body of Christ, among other things. One might think that small groups can be “synodical” better than large groups – a congregation as opposed to a Communion. But history tells us otherwise: the Body of Christ is a challenge with “two or three gathered” or with millions. And to be faithful as the Body of Christ, we must be faithful synodically as small groups, congregations, dioceses, national churches, and global communions (and finally the Church catholic). They are all part of a single network of “walking together” behind and with Christ Jesus, “one flock”, one “way”, the “Way” that is the “way together” in Christ, because of course He is “the Way”.

Conservative Episcopalians like myself have promoted and continue to champion the Anglican Covenant because it is the only concrete proposal that lies before us that is truly synodical in this sense. It is shaped by concrete commitments, acknowledged foundations, and common practices and hopes regarding such “life-together”. Of course, it makes no sense to adopt a Covenant whose commitments one either cannot accept or enact. We recognize that TEC as a whole is not ready to do this. But we think that there are those in TEC – and surely in the Church of England, not to say around the world – who are ready for such a synodical life. Furthermore, we believe that if we are able to pursue it freely, its own value will be sufficiently attractive to provide the basis for some change of mind. Those who will not adopt the Covenant must not impede those who wish to do so. How the two groups work things out after that is not clear. But the very encouragement such openness involves will go a long way to permitting a fruitful way forward.

Shortly after 2003 General Convention, I submitted my resignation from TEC’s ecumenical committee. I did so for two reasons: first, I felt that our discussions with other churches had been subverted by having adopted decisions at variance with previous promises we had made: how have a dialogue with a church that could so easily change its mind? Second, I simply wanted to lodge a protest. I now consider my action to have been a mistake. One should try to walk with others even when one is wounded and incapacitated; even when one is mistrusted and when one has sinned or been sinned against. In the end, synodality is meaningless without the reality of the great Physician behind it. Second, “protests” are a dime a dozen, and can be made without destroying the capacity to speak together. Granted, the pressures to walk apart in this era are both enormous and persuasive.

Peaceableness

For who needs the fighting? To say that conservative Episcopalians want peace is an understatement. When I say we want “to be left alone” that is not to be understood in terms of rejecting peaceful engagement; it is, in fact, a code-word for such peace. Peace is a goal for the Scriptures; but it is also a way of life, part of the “way together” (Mat. 5:9; Ps. 34;14; Rom 14:17). The “fruit” of the past years is sufficient witness against how we have gone about our business and the decisions we have made.

Discipline can form the context for peaceableness. This is what I have always argued with respect to the larger Church’s need to hold one another accountable for the decisions we make or wish to make. But “discipline” within the context of utter disorder rarely rises above arbitrary violence. And this is what we have seen more and more of, at least metaphorically, as the past ten years have evolved. I have always considered the lawsuits among or by Christians to be deadly, and so they have generally proved. Not only are they contradicted by our Lord’s own teaching, their fruit has been bitter in practice. Again, the lashing out against bishops and clergy, whether formally or informally, in the midst of partisan arguments; or similar browbeating within dioceses or congregations has been a wounding sorrow for many. Who would not wish to be free of this?

But as the acts of disorder are from the Evil One, so are the temptations to throw up one’s hands in their face. True peace, as Jesus himself taught us, comes with a cost – the “sword” aimed at one’s own heart. So be it. And given that fact, it is worth living into this peace by walking Jesus’ Way, and not simply conceding its impossibility. We believe that this too, and especially this, will bear the fruit of synodality in the long run. Let us live our Christian lives in peace, and let us be willing, in so doing, to bear the burden of that commitment.

Christian unity

One of the great victims of Episcopal and Anglican disorder over the past few years has been our larger synodical life, that is, our search for the healing of Christian division among separated churches. To be sure, this and that “dialogue” continues; but most participants will tell you privately, if not in public, that a shadow of wariness and even cynicism hangs over most of them. But conservative Episcopalians are committed to the ecumenical vision of the past 100 years precisely because we believe that synodical peaceableness is the proper mode in which the truths of the Gospel can be rightly articulated and heard. We shall seek ways to further this vision no matter how difficult it may appear, and no matter what resistance is offered. We are appalled by the easy dismissal of Roman Catholicism, Pentecostalism, and so on by many TEC leaders, seeing them as reactionary impediments to their agenda. That is exactly what they are not: they are the bulk of the global Christian family with whom our future is bound, and anything that dissolves these bonds must be countered somehow. And, obviously, the same is true of those more conservative Anglicans within the world who form the majority churches of the Communion, and those who have chosen to leave TEC in particular.

It was a grave mistake, I believe, to have successfully pressured, at the 2009 ACC meeting, for the revision of the final section of the Anglican Covenant, largely because one of the concrete ecumenical openings the Covenant offered – the adoption of the Covenant by “other churches” – was thereby removed. “Other churches” is what Jesus is about, in part; other sheep, other sinners, other “children” scattered in the world. In itself, revising the text by removing the reference to “other churches” adopting it, is not fatal. Silence is not prohibition. But the message that was sent by this revision seemed mean-spirited and hostile. In 1920, Anglican leaders at Lambeth courageously issued a sacrificial call to Christian unity that remains unequalled in its clarity and evangelical passion. Sadly, it remains unfulfilled, and in fact increasingly disdained by Anglicans themselves. But that is to undercut the very mission we have to proclaim the Gospel.

Evangelism

Conservative Episcopalians aim especially at such proclamation. And we deeply desire the freedom and fervor in our own churches to engage such proclamation. Little needs to be said about the centrality of preaching the Gospel to the world, and to those who do not believe in Christ as God’s own Son given in sacrificial love on our behalf. That preaching is itself the means of peace and of common life. One thing that we know is that this Good News is less and less heard in countries like the United States and Canada. Not because there are no Christians to speak, but because the very tenor and character of the message has been so compromised by disordered Christian life.

Conservative Episcopalians desire the free and peaceable space to train, equip, send out and support evangelists of all kinds – not just those who fit the expectations of certain social and ideological traditions that have weighed our church down for too many years. In fact, we have the resources to do so, and are doing so, although the suspicions and obstructions of many dioceses render such work limited in large parts of TEC. Yet perhaps, if we can at least convince others of the genuineness of our commitments, the fears that have hemmed us in can bit by bit dissolve. Church planting, alternative forms of ordained leadership, and the rest need more as well as different formative preparation than in the past, and need recruitment of a wide variety of personalities. The current hostile suspicions in the church have actually ended by limiting formation and personnel to what were once “safe” modes that are now simply inadequate ones. We are ready to do far more than the past few years suggest is possible.

Hope

One distinguishing mark of conservative Episcopalians – and here I speak about others especially whom I know – is the deep hopefulness with which they approach the Church’s life. We have learned that carefully strategic and political positioning is a weak tool when it comes to pursuing the purposes of our common life as we have discerned it. The Church belongs to God, who has claimed it for the glory of His Son. And this is true of the disparate pieces of the Church, like TEC as well. Ordering local and national convention legislation, organizing partisan allies at meetings, pressuring budgets and secretly preparing legal maneuvers – sometimes this can provide short-term ‘gains” for a position, but in the long-term it is actually a toxic form of Christian life. The most we can and the most we are asked to do is to speak clearly and openly about what we know, and to do so gently – “the truth in love”.

To be sure, that itself is often viewed as a “political act”, but that cannot be helped. For the Church belongs to God, and given the strange mystery of God’s own exercise of power in the world – a mystery embodied in Jesus – we cannot be sure if God’s purposes may not counter everything we had thought to count as success. Paul’s ecclesiology can be neatly summed up in his words from Romans 15:13: “Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost”. At least, this is a true – and sufficient — vision of the Church of Christ for times like these.

I think it fair to say that many conservative Episcopalians like myself look to the coming days of Anglicanism with some trepidation. Most of this unease, however, comes from residual anxieties over ongoing hostilities such as we have experienced from the past few years. At the same time, such learned patterns of feeling are not good gauges of the present or future. We know that. Far more important are the things we value, pray for, lift up in our ministries, and thus know in hope to be promised in the real grace of God’s work in Christ. To look upon these realities is in fact to be deeply encouraged. It is, therefore, worth reaffirming who we are in this time. For as objects of God’s grace in Christ, we are in just the right place.

Williams’ resignation, however, seems an admission of failure on his part.  In this case, the failure is twofold.  First, there is his loss of authority in the Church of England, where his attempts at brokering a compromise on women bishops and his advocacy on behalf of the Church of England’s adoption of the Anglican Covenant are both poised for rejection. Williams’ unpersuasive leadership on this front has weighed heavily on his office.   But second, and more deep-rooted and perhaps consequential, is Williams’ perceived failure with respect to the Anglican Communion’s integrity of common life.

When it comes to the Communion’s conflicted provinces, Williams has voiced a consistent commitment to the voluntary self-restraint on controversial actions by member churches, for the sake of ongoing communion.  This he did through personal appeals, counting on the intrinsic persuasiveness of his exhortations.  But this proved from the start insufficient, and Williams’ reluctance ever to go beyond such a method of personal persuasion gave rise, without let-up or intervention, to quickly accumulating breaks in communion life. .  He seemed increasingly to have been left standing on the sidelines of church struggles, ignored by participants.

That the “participants” themselves have never ceased pressing their own views in often politically unsettling ways has not been Williams’ fault.  But he seems never to have grasped what was needed pragmatically in the face of the irreconcilable positions on the topic of sexuality and Scripture held by the mostly Western Anglo-American churches on one side and the mostly Global South churches on the other. .  He was simply mistaken if he ever thought each could compromise their convictions consistently over time enough to stay together.   There was, however, a real alternative to unimpeded fragmentation: this would have been a strict procedural discipline, based on the current structures of the Communion’s common counsel.

Yet it was just here that Williams was unable to commit himself clearly, to allow “his yes to be yes and his no to be no”.  For reasons that remain unclear, Williams refused to use his own powerful office and formal role as convener, chair, or president of various Communion structures to act upon the general counsel of Communion leaders.  Time and again decisions were reached – among Primates, by designated commissions, at Lambeth Conference even – to follow a certain course of action, yet the Archbishop failed publicly to press these decisions to their disciplinary conclusion.  The choreography of Lambeth 2008, which did everything to irritate and even insult both sides of the divide and nothing to address the issues openly and directly, was a deflating experience of lost opportunities.  The 2009 ACC meeting, which he allowed, as president, publicly to overstep procedural norms and expectations, represented a nadir of institutional dysfunction, which instigated a practical abandonment of the Instruments of Communion by many bishops.  It also subverted, in the eyes of many, the Covenant process he had done so much to encourage, yet then allowed to drift and dangle.

All the while, the dynamics of autonomous division have continued apace.  The numerical and financial implosions of many of the Western churches during this time, with ominous signs ahead for the Church of England, are currently putting an exclamation point to this sad chapter of Anglican life. In the end, he could not accept for the church the kinds of disciplines he encouraged for his own life and mind.  Over the past two years, indeed, the Archbishop has said less and less about these Communion matters, and focused his considerable intellectual energies, for better or worse, on the political and economic concerns of British society. It was as if the Church’s problems had overwhelmed even this great theologian’s capacities and aptitudes, and the kinds of decisions needed for the global Communion’s common life simply did not fit the ecclesiology of patient and open-ended debate with which his personality was most at ease.

It is very uncertain what, if any particular consequence, Williams’ resignation will entail.  The materially self-destructive dynamics of North American Anglicanism are already well entrenched, and are not likely to change any time soon, until collapsing finances completely rob the current structures of their authority.  To be sure, this may happen sooner than some expect, as Canadian and US dioceses go bankrupt, other dioceses see their funding dissipate, and national church budgets no longer support structures of oversight and decision-making that until now have presided over the demise of their churches. Alternative Anglican bodies in these areas, however, are fast becoming separate Protestant denominations, subject to the same cultural pressures and deformations as other independent Protestant bodies.

The key to the Anglican Communion’s future does indeed lie outside the constrained spiritual imaginations of the West, which is why the transition from Williams’ tenure is less important than it might once have been.  Anglicanism’s future lies instead in the hands of the still vital non-Western churches of Africa and parts of Asia.  Ironically, Williams has left them a means by which they can legitimately and formally regroup and restore a center of order, to which dispersed and weakened parts of the Western churches might eventually return:  and that is the Covenant itself, which can easily and quickly be adopted by these non-Western churches, and revised as necessary for future health.

Given the current state of the Instruments of Communion – Canterbury, Lambeth Conference, the Primates’ Meeting and the ACC – it is likely that many African and Asian churches will simply choose not to participate in these councils and relationships. The Covenant, precisely in its likely rejection by the Church of England and other Western churches, can now provide an alternative means of Anglican witness for non-Western churches that is nonetheless able to maintain its links with ongoing Communion structures.   Saying “No” to the Covenant is something the Covenant itself acknowledges as possible, and churches like England’s are exercising that choice.  But no one can say “No” in such a way as to co-opt the choice of others to say “Yes”, and it is for those who embrace the Covenant now to chart its common usefulness, which remains one of rich possibility. In general, the key to the Covenant’s dynamic adaptation to the needs of its adopting members lies in the fact that its ongoing shape and application is under the exclusive governance of those who have adopted it.   And key to its potential unifying role in the future are its origins, content, and intrinsic interest in the older structures and membership of the Communion itself.

Three elements now place a wedge between any future covenanting Anglican churches and not only the Church of England, but the current Instruments of Communion themselves.  First, the Covenant itself grants a functional role to the Archbishop of Canterbury within the Instruments of Communion (3.1.4);  second, after its recent legal reorganization, the ACC is now an English company, whose membership for purposes of English law is the Standing Committee, of which the Archbishop of Canterbury is an ex officio member;  third,  Paragraph 4.2.8 of the Covenant  limits participation in the Instruments for purposes of the Covenant to “those members of the Instruments of Communion who are representatives of those churches who have adopted the Covenant, or who are still in the process of adoption.”  It is difficult to see, then, how the current Instruments can function for the Covenant, without the Church of England, in the absence of substantial clarification of the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury as a “representative” of the Church of England.  The problem with the current Instruments is only magnified by the near certainty that other western churches, who collectively exercise disproportionate influence over the Instruments, will refuse the Covenant as well.

Fortunately, the Covenant already lays out the procedural means for resolving these difficulties through its amendment provision.  Paragraph 4.4.2 provides that any “covenanting Church” (or Instrument) can propose an amendment, which will take effect when ratified by three quarters of the covenanting Churches.  A proposed amendment is to be submitted “through” the Standing Committee, which solicits advice and makes recommendations; but the Standing Committee’s role is mandatory not discretionary.  It has no discretion to refrain from sending the proposal to the covenanting Churches for ratification.  If for any reason the Standing Committee failed to send the proposed amendment out as required in dereliction of its duty, the covenanting Churches could simply deem that procedural step waived.  And it must be emphasized that neither the Instruments nor the non-covenanting Churches have any ability either to amend the Covenant or to interfere in the decision of the covenanting Churches to amend.  The Covenant now lies outside their control.  The Covenant offers a way out of the impasse Williams’ resignation has now exposed.  And it does so in a fashion that is continuous with the Communion’s own movement and spirit of counsel – it is, in other words, ecclesially legitimate.

In broad terms, the scope of necessary amendments to the Covenant is now apparent.  New structures will be needed, at least on an interim basis and with as much continuity with the current structures as is feasible, to function as “Instruments”  of the Covenant Communion, not so much as replacements of current instruments but as means to Communion revitalization.  A coordinating body will also be required to perform the duties given to the Standing Committee in Section 4.  This latter issue has already been resolved by the Global South provinces at their meeting in Singapore in 2010 at which they recommended that the Primates be given this function.  The Primates of the covenanting Churches will be required to take the lead in any event in agreeing to these necessary changes and steering them through the approval process in their Churches.

Finally, among the changes needed to the current text is a clarification to Paragraph 4.1.5, which makes the Covenant available to “other Churches”—churches not currently listed on the ACC membership schedule—at the invitation of the Instruments.  Given the re-definition required for the Instruments, it would be desirable simply to make the Covenant open for adoption to any church that wishes to subscribe to its provisions, including in particular dioceses of Churches that do not adopt the Covenant as a province.  The specific instance of ACNA will also need consideration.

One of the great challenges to the Communion over the past decade has been how churches can legitimately disentangle their common decision-making processes from the political confusions brought about by vying understandings of the Gospel.  The Windsor Report understood this challenge when it spoke of the “very real danger” that Anglican churches might have to “learn to walk apart” (Paragraph 157).  But walking apart need not be a goal, let alone a fixed destiny, if it can be ordered in a procedurally legitimate way that maintains lines of connection and means of mutual recognition.  What Williams failed to bring about for his own church with the Covenant, may well prove – in its present form or in another – the foundation for a future that can one day accomplish a reverse mission to the West, into whose academic halls Williams has now decided to retire.

Anglican Communion Institute
March 26, 2012

A portion of this article has first appeared in The Anglican Planet at http://www.anglicanplanet.net/

Executive Summary

• The Church of England cannot reconsider the covenant until 2015.
• Although diocesan votes are quite strongly against, actual votes cast remain marginally for the covenant and English supporters need to continue advocating for the covenant and its vision.
• The covenant will continue to be considered around the Communion – eight provinces have embraced it and ACC in November will take stock but cannot end the process. Other provinces should be encouraged to adopt the covenant despite the English decision.
• The Church of England remains a full member of the Communion.
• Although the CofE’s representatives cannot now participate in decision-making about the covenant  within the Instruments of Communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury, as an Instrument rather than a provincial representative, may be able to do so.
• There continue to be 3 visions of communion within the Communion – (1) the covenant vision of autonomy and interdependence with accountability, (2) the confessional GAFCON vision and (3) the TEC autonomy-as-independence vision.  Only the first is likely to get the support of most provinces as, though different, it is compatible with the second but not the third vision.
• The Communion now must choose between two main paths of significant reconfiguration – (A) A covenant-focussed Communion but with the Church of England outside the covenant, (B) A looser, more incoherent Communion with various networks within or possibly separate from it.
• Archbishop Rowan’s via media approach of holding the Communion together by enabling conversation within the framework of upholding the Windsor Report, Lambeth I.10 and the covenant now needs major restructuring if it is to survive.
• Neither the Communion nor the Church of England can remain unchanged by this development which makes it harder for Anglicanism’s distinctive historic tradition and global communion of churches to “survive with all its aspects intact”.

Can the Church of England still adopt the Anglican Communion Covenant?

Even if more people in the dioceses ultimately vote for the covenant than against it (the votes so far show a church divided almost 50:50 but the pattern has been marginally more votes in favour) and most members of General Synod would wish to vote for it, under Article 8 of its Constitution, General Synod is unable to approve the proposed Act of Synod. This is because over half the dioceses – now 23 in total – have voted against with only 15 in favour and another 6 to vote.

It is also the case that General Synod cannot reconsider the Act during this Synod. It would be open to the new Synod, elected in 2015, to again request the dioceses to approve a draft Act of Synod adopting the covenant or consider an alternative way of the Church of England adopting it.  However, unless there are significant changes in the text of the covenant or strong evidence of a serious change of mind within the wider church (perhaps if most provinces do adopt it and we are a small minority refusing), both of these paths would appear unwise.

The Archbishop of Canterbury will therefore have to report to the Anglican Consultative Council in November that the Church of England has declined to adopt the Covenant and it is highly unlikely this will have changed by Lambeth 2018.  Although other churches may also report such decisions in November, the Church of England is the first province of the Communion formally to reject the invitation to make the covenant’s affirmations and commitments to other provinces by adopting it through the procedures of its own Constitution and Canons (4.1.6). [Although opponents of the covenant claim the Philippines has rejected it, strictly all that has happened is that its Council of Bishops have issued a statement opposing it.  While continued opposition from bishops would obviously lead to provincial rejection, most opponents of the covenant would normally protest at bishops preventing clergy and laity being involved and it appears that wider synodical deliberation is still to occur in the Philippines and no final decision been reached].

Can covenant supporters in the Church of England continue to support the covenant?

The covenant is currently adopted by provinces (not individuals or sub-provincial synods) according to their own Constitution and Canons. As explained above, the Church of England, has rejected the proposal it adopt it as a province. There is, however, nothing to stop those in the Church of England – including its many bishops who have been strongly supportive of it – from continuing to advocate the covenant and seeking to educate and persuade people of its merits. They can continue publicly expressing their support for its vision, explicitly promising to uphold its affirmations and live out its commitments within their own ministries. As Archbishop Rowan said in commending the covenant in December 2009, “it’s open to anybody that wishes to affirm the principles of the Covenant – to say that this is what they wish to live with”.

Does the Church of England’s decision bring an end to the Anglican Communion Covenant?

Those who have opposed the Church of England adopting the covenant clearly hope this will be the consequence. In the Inclusive Church/Modern Church Union advert “Who Runs the Church?” which opened their anti-covenant campaign, they said – “Because the Church of England is the mother church of the Communion, if England declines to sign it will probably not come into effect. This would be the best possible outcome”. This attempt to encourage England to reassert imperial control over the rest of the Communion is, however, unlikely to succeed.

Already over half a dozen of the Communion’s provinces (Mexico, Ireland, South East Asia, Southern Cone, Papua New Guinea, The West Indies, Burma) have covenanted with each other in the terms of the covenant and South Africa has agreed subject to ratification at its next provincial Synod in 2013. The covenant is clear that “This Covenant becomes active for a Church when that Church adopts the Covenant through the procedures of its own Constitution and Canons” (4.1.6). The only way the covenant could therefore cease to exist would be for all those provinces who have adopted it to withdraw from it.

As the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion has said – “In December 2009, as requested by the Standing Committee, I sent the text of The Anglican Communion Covenant to all the Member Churches of the Anglican Communion asking that they consider it for adoption according to their own internal procedures….What next steps are taken by the Church of England is up to that Province. Consideration of the Covenant continues across the Anglican Communion and this was always expected to be a lengthy process”.

What will happen at the Anglican Consultative Council?

At ACC, now nine months away (Nov 2012), the provinces will report “on the progress made in the process of response to, and adoption of, the Covenant”. A significant number of provinces will likely still be in the process of responding.

The ACC has no power to bring those provincial processes it requested to an end and would need to think very carefully before seeking to discourage them from continuing their processes, especially when it appears a majority of those who have completed the process will have adopted the covenant.

Although ACC or the Archbishop of Canterbury could propose amendments it is unclear what good this would do and it would further complicate the process. The amendments would need to be approved by three-quarters of the existing signatories before taking effect. Provinces still in the process of adopting would be left to decide between either adopting a covenant text undergoing amendment or stalling adoption until it was clear whether or not the amendments were accepted (a process likely to take a number of years).

Does the Church of England’s decision change its position in the Instruments of Communion?

The decision not to adopt the covenant does not alter the Church of England’s position in the Instruments of Communion – the Primates’ Meeting, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Lambeth Conference – or the eligibility to stand for the Standing Committee.

However, the covenant is clear that “Participation in the decision making of the Standing Committee or of the Instruments of Communion in respect to section 4.2 shall be limited to those members of the Instruments of Communion who are representatives of those churches who have adopted the Covenant, or who are still in the process of adoption” (4.2.8). The Church of England is no longer “in the process of adoption” and so its representatives cannot participate in the oversight of the covenant. Also, as a non-covenanting Church it cannot propose or vote on amendments to the covenant (4.4.2), although, paradoxically, its representatives in the Instruments would appear to be able to participate in discussion of amendments proposed by an Instrument.

Is the Archbishop of Canterbury excluded from decision-making in relation to the covenant?

An initial reading of the covenant would suggest such exclusion from decision-making about the covenant is likely but the situation remains unclear. He can, it seems, as an Instrument and within the Instruments, propose an amendment under 4.4.2 as 4.2.8 only places limits in relation to section 4.2 not section 4.4

It is not, however, clear whether that section 4.2.8 excludes him from the decision making of the Standing Committee or the Instruments in respect to the controversial section 4.2 on “The Maintenance of the Covenant and Dispute Resolution”. Given his province has not adopted the Covenant and is not “still in the process of adoption” it could be argued that he cannot participate. However, a good case could be made that, uniquely, he does not participate in the Standing Committee or the Instruments as a representative of the Church of England. He is one of the Instruments in his role as Archbishop of Canterbury. In that office he also gathers the Primates and in recent meetings has quite explicitly not acted as a representative of the Church of England – that has been the role of the Archbishop of York. He Presides over the Anglican Consultative Council and is not one of the Church of England’s three elected representatives. He is not invited to the Lambeth Conference as a representative of his province but invites all the other bishops to attend. A case could, therefore, be made that although all other English members of the Standing Committee (for example, its current Vice-Chair) or Instruments cannot now participate in the decision-making relating to the covenant’s maintenance and dispute resolution, the Archbishop of Canterbury can participate.

How does this impact the likely future shape and direction of the Anglican Communion?

There have been, broadly, three competing visions of the Anglican Communion in recent years. First, there is the vision of autonomy and interdependence with accountability. This developed out of the Communion’s historic pattern of life together and has been articulated in the Virginia Report, the Windsor Report and the Anglican Communion Covenant. This is the vision which the Church of England, through its diocesan synods, has rejected. It may, however, still prove to be the vision embraced by the Anglican Communion as a whole. If a significant number of Anglican provinces, particularly from the Global South, do adopt the covenant then it and its vision will still become central to the future life of the Communion even without the Church of England and perhaps some other, mainly “northern” provinces.

Second, there is the more confessional vision represented by the Jerusalem Declaration and GAFCON. Although the GAFCON primates have spoken against the covenant, one GAFCON province – the Southern Cone – has already adopted it and others are in the process of considering it. If the covenant is rejected by major liberal northern provinces, then the more conservative GAFCON provinces may conclude that their fears are unfounded that the covenant’s oversight would be not dominated by them and render it ineffectual. Rather, if supported, it provides the means of reforming the Communion. Alternatively, they may seek to persuade provinces that the Jerusalem Declaration now offers the best or only way to give expression to orthodox Anglicanism.

Third, there is the autonomy-as-independence vision which drives the Episcopal Church and to a lesser degree parts of the Canadian church. This also lay behind the anti-covenant campaign that has now triumphed in England and so this vision may increase its influence here. This vision is unlikely to be able to win the support of most Anglican provinces but the question is whether those who advocate it, because of their historic power and disproportionate influence in Communion structures, will be allowed to wreck the covenant just as they have successfully ignored the moratoria. If so, they will prevent a shared vision of what it means to be a communion of churches taking shape and so potentially secure their much looser vision by default, though perhaps driving more provinces into the GAFCON vision as a result and causing the divisions evident in North America to appear elsewhere, including England.

In short, a major reconfiguration of the Anglican Communion now appears inevitable in broadly one of these forms:

PATH A – A Communion focussed on the covenant and comprising most Anglicans but with the Church of England and any other future non-adopters no longer at its heart.

PATH B – A looser, more incoherent Communion (which would be more of a Federation or Association) with no shared understanding of its common life and thus an increasingly dysfunctional set of Instruments. Either within this – or perhaps increasingly separated from this – there may be one or more networks seeking deeper communion and developing out of bodies such as GAFCON, the Global South, CAPA etc.

Two developments would help the Communion avoid path B which risks being the default, “do nothing” outcome. First, a significant number of provinces should adopt the covenant. Second, the Instruments should – particularly if faced with further disregard of the moratoria (TEC’s General Convention this summer will likely authorise rites for same-sex unions including same-sex marriages where these are legal and may be asked to confirm a priest in a same-sex marriage as Gene Robinson’s successor in New Hampshire) – seek to exercise the authority they already have over the ordering of their own affairs which the covenant provides with formal structure and processes. They have been reluctant to use this authority but, as a result, the Instruments have not been able to function as they should.

What is to be the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Communion?

The rejection of the covenant by the Archbishop’s own province and the continued disregard for the moratoria in North America creates a new and very serious situation. It means that the Anglican via media advocated by Rowan Williams – creating a framework to enable conversation and communion within agreed boundaries almost universally accepted across the Communion – looks like it has become a cul-de-sac.

The “holding together and keep talking while upholding Windsor and I.10 and covenant” approach that Archbishop Rowan fought so hard for is in need of major restructuring if it is to survive now that the covenant has been defeated in the Church of England. He, in his final months in office, or his successor on taking office, need to find a way forward given key elements of this vision of the Communion have been rejected by the Church of England.

If path A is followed then the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury as a focus of unity and linchpin of the other Instruments becomes increasingly difficult. Pressure will likely grow either for the leadership of the Communion to be moved away from the Primate of All England or for the new Archbishop to persuade the Church of England urgently to reconsider its rejection of the covenant.

Pressure on the Archbishop to either lead or acquiesce in a move towards path B could well increase within the Church of England. This could arise as a result of reviews on civil partnerships in 2012 and sexuality more widely in 2013 and the increasing lobbying, following their victory over the covenant, of those who hope the Church of England will follow a more TEC-sympathetic “inclusive” and “autonomy” vision of the Communion.

Conclusion

In 2006, in one of his many statements supporting the covenant and reflecting on the challenge and hope of being an Anglican, Archbishop Rowan warned “that lines of division run within local Churches as well as between them”. Although the impression is of a solid rejection of the covenant, in reality the votes cast in the Church of England dioceses on the covenant show us to be split down the middle on whether the Church of England should adopt the covenant and its vision of life in communion.

He continued to say “There is no way in which the Anglican Communion can remain unchanged by what is happening at the moment” and warned

We do have a distinctive historic tradition – a reformed commitment to the absolute priority of the Bible for deciding doctrine, a catholic loyalty to the sacraments and the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, and a habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does not seek to close down unexpected questions too quickly. But for this to survive with all its aspects intact, we need closer and more visible formal commitments to each other.

Many of us see in the covenant a brilliant expression of that distinctive tradition and a truly Anglican path for those closer and more visible formal commitments to each other.  Now the Church of England dioceses have refused to authorise us adopting it as a province, we have to face the reality that Anglicanism’s distinctive historic tradition and global communion of churches may not “survive with all its aspects intact”.  It must now be acknowledged that there is no way in which either the Anglican Communion or the Church of England can remain unchanged by what has happened.

Published in the Church of England Newspaper and on Fulcrum

Life is always more interesting when things don’t go as planned. That alone should make the Anglican Communion Covenant interesting in 2012. General Synod rarely refers matters to dioceses. When it does, it often seems – as with women bishops – a procedural necessity with a foregone positive conclusion. As 2011 closes, the covenant has departed from that script. It has the support of four dioceses but been rejected by four dioceses. At least 23 of the 44 dioceses must support it for it to return to General Synod for final approval. The 2012 diocesan synod debates are therefore crucial. To resource these, Fulcrum has recently collated various articles and produced a short “Churchgoer’s Guide to the Anglican Communion Covenant”. This concludes with the following ten reasons to support the covenant.

1. It has been consistently supported by the Church of England which significantly shaped its content through the years of its development and so we should not now reverse our positive and constructive response.
2. It is a development in line with the Communion’s evolving life and is faithful to Anglicanism’s theological and ecclesiological tradition and identity.
3. It gives form to a vision of ‘communion with autonomy and accountability’ that has been central to the Communion’s self-understanding and is a genuine Anglican via media avoiding the dangers of both a centralised, controlling Curia and a fragmenting, fractious federation.
4. It enables Anglicans across the world and Christians in other denominations to understand who we are as Anglicans and how we seek to live together and share in God’s mission together as part of the body of Christ.
5. It provides a clear agreed framework for debate, diversity and development through shared discernment within agreed affirmations and commitments.
6. It facilitates changes in continuity and dialogue with both our Anglican tradition and our fellow Anglicans around the world and thus serves our unity in Christ.
7. It preserves provincial autonomy but allows the clear articulation of the catholic consensus within the Communion and an ordered – rather than the recent chaotic – response within Anglicanism when provinces believe they need to act contrary to this.
8. It offers the best, perhaps the only, means of preventing further bitter fragmentation by enabling the highest degree of communion among Anglicans.
9. It does not explicitly address specific controversial issues but cultivates practices and provides processes for addressing whatever innovations – for example, lay presidency – might arise when some Anglicans may feel called to act in a way that others do not recognise as faithful developments.
10. The Archbishop of Canterbury has asked the Church of England to support him and the other Instruments in working for the widest possible acceptance of the covenant within the Communion.

Given these, and many other reasons, why has the Church of England so far appeared half-hearted?

There are various factors. For some, the covenant has appeared from nowhere and is tainted by recent Communion divisions. For others, opposition may reflect an inherent natural conservatism suspicious of new developments or even a sub-Christian nationalism that fails to recognise the importance of living within a global communion of churches. In addition, relatively little has been done until now to explain the covenant simply and show its importance and value – hence Fulcrum’s recent guide. In contrast, there has been a vociferous organised international campaign against it.

The No Anglican Covenant Coalition is driven by various commitments. It has an alternative, incompatible vision of life in communion whose theory and practice are rarely explained or scrutinised. This is centred on a minimalist Anglican identity (sometimes almost reduced to a principle of celebrating unbounded diversity) which rejects interdependence and mutual accountability so provinces can unilaterally act however they wish without reference to Anglicans elsewhere.

This vision lay behind the actions of North American dioceses and provinces which in 2003 tore the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level. Despite the rhetoric of inclusive diversity, it has divided the church and established liberal dominance in the Episcopal Church in America (TEC). It also justifies their continued refusal to heed repeated requests to stop, wait, consult and persuade for the good of the wider church. A covenant that could help repair the tear by re-affirming provinces’ commitment to longstanding Anglican patterns of life in communion is something this vision’s supporters are determined to resist. Sadly, despite appealing to reason and tolerance, their campaign has at times misrepresented the covenant and painted extreme scenarios based on such distortions to engender anxiety and fear.

Evangelicals won’t be attracted by this alternative vision but some seem tempted to form an unholy alliance with it by opposing the covenant or abstaining. Their concern is the mirror-opposite: the covenant is too weak and should be abandoned for the GAFCON vision of confessional Anglicanism. That vision, however, whatever its strengths, lacks the covenant’s commitments to cultivate ecclesial virtues and institutions which nourish communion. It isn’t clear how it will reform and strengthen the Communion rather than facilitate its fragmentation and demise.

In fact, much in the covenant should delight and encourage evangelicals. There is nothing to which we fundamentally object. That’s why it has been consistently supported by the Global South leadership. There can also be little doubt its defeat in the Church of England would be claimed – and widely seen – as a triumph for those who have supported TEC.

Archbishop Rowan’s recent Advent letter continued “to commend the Covenant as strongly as I can”, arguing it will enable us “to agree on ways of limiting damage, managing conflict and facing with honesty the actual effects of greater disunity”. For those reasons and the others outlined by Fulcrum, in 2012 evangelicals from across evangelicalism should be well-informed, enthusiastic and committed supporters of the covenant, speaking and voting for it in deanery and diocesan synods and then in General Synod.

The Revd Dr Andrew Goddard is Tutor in Christian Ethics at Trinity College, Bristol, a Fellow of the Anglican Communion Institute and on the Leadership Team of Fulcrum (www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk)

First, the Board’s decision is explicitly based on the recognition of a distinction between official actions of the Diocese of South Carolina and statements and acts by Bishop Lawrence as an individual. Bishop Henderson’s statement, here speaking for the Board as a whole, suggests that the Board probably regarded certain “actions by conventions of the Diocese of South Carolina” as “abandonment of the Church and its discipline by the diocese” (emphasis in the original). The Board, of course, did not state this conclusion so definitively, and we will address its qualifications below. But it is important to note that the Board acknowledged that the actions in question were official acts of “the diocese” even when they might constitute abandonment of TEC.

We have advocated for some time the traditional polity of TEC that recognizes the legal autonomy of its constituent dioceses. Although we have consistently urged those dioceses not to abandon TEC, we have recognized their autonomy and legal right to do so. One often hears it said that only individuals can leave TEC. It is encouraging to have the Board, the body responsible under the canons for the discipline of TEC bishops, state quite plainly that “actions by conventions of the Diocese of South Carolina” might constitute “abandonment of the Church and its discipline by the diocese.” For reasons we will elaborate further below, we believe this traditional understanding of TEC’s polity holds the key to greater unity in the Church in the days ahead.

Second, as already noted, the Board qualified its opinion as to whether the Diocese had abandoned TEC by adding that the undisputed actions of the diocesan conventions “seem…to be pointing toward” abandonment by the diocese. The facts concerning what the Diocese did are not in question; only their legal consequences. It is not clear whether the Board’s qualification on this issue is due to the fact that it lacks jurisdiction over the Diocese or also due to the view that the actions by the diocesan conventions do not yet constitute abandonment, but may only “point toward” such a possibility in the future.

We hope the Board has reached both of these conclusions. Findings of abandonment should be limited to those cases where there has been explicit disaffiliation with TEC. And in the case of the Diocese of South Carolina, there has been no suggestion of disaffiliation. To the contrary, it has very intentionally retained in its constitution an accession to TEC’s Constitution. It has with equal determination defended TEC’s constitutional polity as traditionally understood. We have undertaken a thorough review of the constitutional history of clergy discipline in TEC and can only conclude that no fair minded reader could find the position of the Diocese of South Carolina to be unreasonable on this issue. It cannot be a renunciation of the discipline of the Church to seek to uphold that discipline as specified in the Constitution by resisting unconstitutional encroachment on the Diocese’s exclusive authority.

TEC’s credibility has been greatly damaged in recent years by the abuse of the abandonment canon. We hope this decision signals a return to the traditional and proper use of this canon by limiting it to cases where there has been true abandonment. Deeming the principled defense of the Church’s discipline to be the renunciation of that discipline would only undermine the very discipline the Church seeks to protect.

Third, despite the Board’s expressed concerns about the actions of the Diocese, it concluded that Bishop Lawrence himself had not abandoned the Church or renounced its discipline notwithstanding his unequivocal support of the Diocese’s actions. Renunciation has traditionally been understood to include not only actions but statements. Indeed, under Title III, “renunciation of the ordained ministry” is defined as a declaration in writing to the Presiding Bishop. In the context of the abandonment canon, when the Board considers the standard of “an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline or Worship of the Church” it necessarily reviews not only official acts but also any relevant statements by the bishop who has been charged with abandonment. Although the breadth of this standard makes it subject to abuse, this same breadth produces an extraordinarily broad exoneration when charges are dismissed. In the case of Bishop Lawrence, all matters related to the canonical changes by the Diocese of South Carolina, by far the most important part of the allegations against him, have been adjudicated, and he has been cleared. Given the breadth of the “open renunciation” standard and Bishop Lawrence’s explicit and public support for the diocesan canonical changes, no further action by him in relation to these matters could revive these charges.

Indeed, the findings in respect of Bishop Lawrence are even broader. As we have noted before, under the new Title IV all clergy are required to report to the Intake Officer “all matters which may constitute an Offense.” The failure by the Board to refer these matters to the Intake Officer thus necessarily constitutes a finding by them, the body responsible for the trial of bishops under Title IV, that not only has there been no abandonment, neither has there been a violation of any of the other disciplinary canons. In other words, Bishop Lawrence has been given the broadest possible clearance.

Fourth, turning to the final sentence in Bishop Henderson’s statement in which he emphasizes that he is speaking only for himself, we note that the express reservation here underscores the fact that the rest of his statement is made on behalf of the entire Board. As to the substance of this sentence, we are unsure what Bishop Henderson means when he expresses his hope that the minority in South Carolina will be given a “safe place.” We are unaware of any allegations that dissident clergy have been disciplined or otherwise treated unfairly by Bishop Lawrence or the Diocese. There was a single allegation concerning a chapel comprised of dissenters from the diocesan majority, but this related not to any alleged discipline or persecution but only to whether this chapel would be organized as a diocesan parish or mission. Bishop Lawrence has in the past vigorously refuted this allegation, pointing out that he has worked closely with this chapel to provide them with priests, including the licensing of priests from other dioceses. In any event, this allegation was dismissed along with the others.

Perhaps Bishop Henderson was using the term “safe place” to suggest that Bishop Lawrence permit the dissenters to perform same sex blessings, call priests who are in same sex relationships or practice communion of the unbaptized, practices that are widespread elsewhere in TEC but prohibited in the Diocese of South Carolina. There is much esteem and affection for Bishop Henderson in the Church, but his hopes on this point are simply those of one bishop expressed openly to another. For our part, we have little doubt that Bishop Lawrence will continue to require that all under his episcopal authority adhere to traditional standards of sexual ethics, standards required by diocesan canons, regardless of any decision made to approve blessings at next year’s General Convention.

Finally, we note that Bishop Lawrence has largely succeeded in keeping his diocese intact and within TEC notwithstanding the intense disagreement with the current trajectory of TEC by an overwhelming majority of the diocese. We attribute this unity not only to Bishop Lawrence’s profound faith and leadership, but also to his decision to forego attempts to coerce this unity. Paradoxically, the greatest unity has come not because it is enforced but because it is voluntarily offered. TEC as a whole has tried the opposite approach, and not surprisingly that has been met with the opposite results. Millions of dollars have been spent on endless litigation in an apparent attempt to erect a “Berlin wall” around TEC. The result has been the loss of almost a quarter of TEC’s attendance during the last decade. Although only four dioceses have voted formally to disaffiliate from TEC, the equivalent of over twenty average size dioceses has been lost in the last ten years.

How much of this could have been avoided had TEC decided to forgo attempts at coercion? TEC is blessed with a traditional polity of decentralized authority dispersed among autonomous dioceses, a polity ideally suited to today’s challenges and disputes. We hope the decision by the Board to dismiss charges against Bishop Lawrence signals a renewed recognition of these founding principles. The greatest possible unity in TEC will be found when dioceses exercise their authority to address the difficult issues facing the Church through their own local processes.

Sources:
A Statement by the President of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops Regarding the Bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina

South Carolina: Upholding the Church’s Discipline by Upholding the Constitution

Title IV and the Constitution: Dioceses’ Exclusive Authority

First, the Presiding Bishop addresses a psychological report prepared for the Roman Catholic Church in 2000 that found he had “a proclivity to re-offend with minors.” The Presiding Bishop states:

I wrote to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Las Vegas and the Diocese of Santa Fe, receiving brief responses from each bishop, who indicated no problematic behavior.  I wrote to Conception Abbey, from whom I received only an acknowledgement that he had served there, been sent for treatment to a facility in New Mexico, and had been dismissed for this incident of misconduct. Neither then nor later did I receive a copy of any report of a psychological examination in connection with his service in the Roman Catholic Church.

In a signed statement earlier this year, however, Parry stated:

Also in 2000, I considered joining the Prince of Peace monastery in Riverside, California. Prince of Peace had me undergo a series of psychological tests. After the testing, Prince of Peace’s Abbot Charles Wright informed me I was no longer a candidate. The psychological evaluation had determined that I had a proclivity to reoffend with minors. Abbot Wright called Conception Abbey’s Abbot Gregory Polan with this information.

Abbot Polan would later share the information with Robert Stoeckig from the Catholic Diocese of Las Vegas, Episcopal Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and the human resources department at Mercy Ambulance in Las Vegas. Bishop Daniel Walsh, Monsignor Ben Franzinelli, Bishop Joseph Pepe, Archbishop Robert Sanchez and Rev. Bob Nelson were also made aware of my previous misconduct.

The Presiding Bishop’s statement does not directly contradict Parry’s assertion that she was told of the “information” in the report. Parry did not state that she had “received” the report. Can the Presiding Bishop categorically deny Parry’s statement that she was told of the information in the report?

Second, according to the Episcopal News Service:

Edwards told ENS Nov. 15 that Parry has resigned from both All Saints and the diocese, has not functioned as a priest since the summer and will not do so in the future.

We note that Parry is still listed as a priest resident in the Diocese of Nevada on the clergy finder.

Bishop Edwards does not state that Parry has renounced his orders, but that he “resigned” from the diocese and that he will not function as a priest. We are not clear what “resigning” from a diocese is. Renunciation of orders requires a certification that the renunciation “was for causes which do not affect the person’s moral character.” Has Bishop Edwards given that certification? If he has not accepted a renunciation, has Parry’s ministry been restricted under Title IV? If neither has occurred, on what basis are we assured that Parry will not function as a priest in the future?

The question of how a former Roman Catholic priest who has admitted to repeated abuse of minors under his care and who agreed to be laicized could have been received into TEC as a priest has been much discussed. It is startling that the Diocese of Nevada acknowledges that it was aware of his past misconduct, including a police report, prior to his reception, but proffers the reassurance that the Bishop and Commission on Ministry

did not decide to put children at risk. By accepting Fr. Bede as a priest, they were determining that he was not a threat to children.

Few have found this very reassuring, especially since a near-contemporaneous psychological evaluation made by the Roman Catholic Church shortly before Parry began his process of reception into TEC found that he had a “proclivity to re-offend with minors.” Indeed, notwithstanding the prior determination of safety by the diocese, Parry immediately tendered his resignation as a priest in TEC—characterized by ENS as Parry’s “renouncing his orders”—the moment his past conduct became public knowledge.

One of the most remarkable aspects of this entire matter is that immediately after accepting Parry’s resignation the current Bishop of Nevada, Dan Edwards, also said of the original decision:

It was a multi-level decision which meticulously followed the applicable canons….

As I review what was done 2002 – 2004, I find no fault with the actions of any of our people, lay or ordained.

And TEC’s Office of Public Affairs, working for the Presiding Bishop, released a statement at the same time that emphasized:

Diocese of Nevada Bishop Dan Edwards and his staff have reviewed the records and shared with appropriate commissions and the diocesan chancellor, and they confirmed there were no departures from established policies and procedures. As in all Diocese of Nevada workings, all canons were followed; all policies and procedures were followed, and continue to be followed. (Emphasis added.)

The canonical implications of this have been much discussed, most ably by Allan Haley who concludes to the contrary that there were canonical violations in this process. We believe Haley makes a strong case. Our purpose, however, is not to debate this point, but instead to consider the implications of the position taken by the Diocese of Nevada and the Office of Public Affairs: that a child abuser could knowingly be received into TEC’s priesthood while complying “meticulously” with all canons, policies and procedures. If true, this is a bigger cause for concern than what may have been a one-time canonical violation. That bishops violate the canons is hardly news. That confessed child abusers are not barred by TEC’s child abuse policies is more troubling.

Bede Parry Was a Typical Abuser

In his defense of the actions of the Diocese of Nevada, Bishop Edwards begins with an odd claim:

First, what this story is not: This is not the horrifying story of a predatory pedophile priest who is passed from parish to parish so he can continue his predatory behavior. Far from it. For those who have the story of the predatory pedophile fixed in their minds, it will be difficult to hear and accept the actual facts. These facts will not fit their entrenched assumptions. But if we are to tell the truth, we must tell a different story.

He then elaborates;

An incident with a late adolescent, while certainly morally wrong, and unquestionably a matter for serious concern, does not indicate pedophilia. Pedophilia is sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. It is a condition that is usually compulsive, so repeated misconduct is common. American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed. 1994) (DSM IV) Pedophilia Sec. 302.2 pp. 527-528. Fr. Bede is not a pedophile. This is not a moral difference but it is a psychological difference that matters a great deal in determining whether someone is likely to err again.

This claim at the heart of Bishop Edwards’ defense is misplaced for two reasons. First, if the diocese knowingly received as a priest someone who sexually abused minors under his care, it is of no consequence that the priest was not also a pedophile in the clinical sense.

More significantly, however, Bede Parry fit in almost every respect the standard profile of clerical abuse in the Roman Catholic Church. He was a typical abuser.

The 2011 John Jay report prepared for the Catholic bishops summarized the research conducted over the last decade with the following:

Less than 5 percent of the priests with allegations of abuse exhibited behavior consistent with a diagnosis of pedophilia (a psychiatric disorder that is characterized by recurrent fantasies, urges, and behaviors about prepubescent children). Thus, it is inaccurate to refer to abusers as “pedophile priests.” (p. 3)

The majority of victims (81 percent) were male, in contrast to the distribution by victim gender for sexual crimes in the United States. National incidence studies have consistently shown that in general girls are three times more likely to be abused than boys. Despite this widely accepted statistic on victim gender, recent studies of sexual abuse of minors within institutions have shown a higher percentage of male than female victims. (pp. 9-10; footnotes omitted)

“The majority of victims were pubescent or postpubescent” with 78% percent being 11 and older. (p. 10) In their earlier 2004 report, the John Jay team noted more specifically that “the majority of victims are males between the ages of 11-17.” (p. 70)

And based on their analysis of both the formal allegations and “potential allegations” (known indications of abuse that were not the subject of formal allegations presented to the dioceses) the John Jay team concluded in 2004 (p. 52) that half of the Catholic priests who abused minors did so to more than one victim.  And these “serial abusers” were more likely to be reported to the police than those who abused only one victim. (p.64)

To summarize, half of the Catholic abusers had more than one victim; fewer than five percent were clinical pedophiles. There were nine non-pedophile repeat abusers for every pedophile. To say that Parry was not a pedophile tells us virtually nothing about whether he was likely to abuse again. And his own history confirms this: he acknowledges that he was a repeat abuser, and the psychological evaluation performed shortly before he began the process of being received into TEC found that he had a proclivity to re-offend with minors. Bishop Edwards’ excursus on clinical precision is an irrelevant detour.

The Roman Catholic Response

In January 2002 the Boston Globe began a series of reports exposing abuse of children in the Roman Catholic Church. Later that year the Catholic bishops responded with a new policy, subsequently revised and commonly known as the “Dallas Charter,” that implemented a “one strike and you’re out” policy. It cannot be a coincidence that in that same year, 2002, Bede Parry was laicized (with his consent) in the Catholic Church and began the process of reception into TEC.

The norms promulgated by the Catholic bishops in 2002 and subsequently revised in 2005 are unequivocal:

When even a single act of sexual abuse by a priest or deacon is admitted or is established after an appropriate process in accord with canon law, the offending priest or deacon will be removed permanently from ecclesiastical ministry, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state, if the case so warrants… If the penalty of dismissal from the clerical state has not been applied (e.g., for reasons of advanced age or infirmity), the offender ought to lead a life of prayer and penance. He will not be permitted to celebrate Mass publicly or to administer the sacraments. He is to be instructed not to wear clerical garb, or to present himself publicly as a priest.

Significantly, “sexual abuse” is broadly defined to include not only inappropriate conduct in personal encounters, but also “the acquisition, possession, or distribution by a cleric of pornographic images of minors” (defined in the United States as minors under the age of eighteen).

It was clear under this policy that Bede Parry would be removed permanently from ecclesiastical ministry. In fact, he consented in 2002 to his removal from the clerical state, commonly known as “laicization.” That same year he began the process of being received into TEC. He has stated publicly that he was attracted to TEC because it does not have a “one strike and you’re out policy.”

The TEC Response: Background

TEC’s development of policies on sexual abuse began even before the Roman Catholic scandal as a result of an incident of misconduct and large legal judgment against the church in the 1990s. By 2001, a special “Committee on Sexual Exploitation” had surveyed all the domestic dioceses and reviewed the policies on sexual abuse of seventy dioceses. It concluded that “none of the policies gathered was a truly state-of-the-art, ‘next generation’ policy that could serve as a model for those dioceses planning on revising and updating their current policies.” After the Catholic scandal became public in 2002, the TEC committee reported to the 2003 General Convention that “denial has existed at all levels.”

As a result, the Church Pension Group began to develop model child sexual abuse prevention and response policies. And consideration of this issue, which had been moving slowly, became more urgent. The CPG made a presentation at the March 2003 House of Bishops meeting entitled “What Every Bishop Should Know About Pedophiles and Preventing Child Sexual Abuse in the Church.” In a pastoral letter to the church from the bishops later in 2003, they made clear that they were using “pedophilia” not in the narrow, clinical sense cited by Bishop Edwards but as synonymous with sexual abuse of minors under 18: “Pedophilia is pervasive; one in eight males and one in four females will be molested before they reach the age of eighteen.”

A year after the Roman Catholic bishops adopted their “Dallas Charter,” the TEC policy began taking shape. The 2003 General Convention passed Resolution B008 “Protection of Children and Youth from Abuse” and the House of Bishops issued a pastoral letter on “Child Sexual Abuse.” The latter cited Resolution B008 but stated further:

In addition we asked the Presiding Bishop to create a working group from among our members to partner with the Church Pension Group, the Church Insurance Corporation and other agencies and appropriate organizations to develop the materials necessary to provide the Church with consistent expectations and standards.

These “consistent expectations and standards” were released by the CPG in 2004 as “Model Policies for the Protection of Children and Youth from Abuse.”

Finally, both the Title III canons on Ministry and the Title IV canons on Discipline were comprehensively revised over the period 2003 to 2009.

These documents constitute the canons, policies and procedures on child sex abuse of TEC. When the Presiding Bishop’s office and the Diocese of Nevada say that all “canons, policies and procedures” were “meticulously followed” they are referring to this set of documents, all of which were adopted after the Roman Catholic child abuse scandal and the Catholic bishops’ response and most of which were in their current form or were substantially the same as those that now exist when Bede Parry was received in 2004.

TEC Policies

When these new canons and policies, developed in the last decade in the light of public scandals, are reviewed carefully, one can with effort see how the claim could be put forward by those defending the decision that all canons and policies were complied with when the Diocese of Nevada received a repeat offender from the Catholic Church as a priest in TEC. None of these canons or policies explicitly prohibits a child abuser from serving as either a TEC priest or in any other position that regularly works with children. The CPG policy requires “screening” of church personnel, but does not prohibit outright the employment of child abusers. The disciplinary canons make child sexual abuse a violation, but do not mandate removal of clerical abusers, either permanently or even temporarily. Indeed, the new disciplinary canons give the diocesan bishop more, not less, discretion in disciplinary matters. While there is little doubt that most bishops will respond aggressively to credible allegations of abuse, such a response is not mandated. The ordination and reception canons similarly contain no explicit prohibition on the ordination of known sex abusers, and the argument that such a prohibition is implicit is disputed as we have seen. The closest any of these canons and policies come to an outright prohibition is the 2003 pastoral letter from the House of Bishops, which states only that:

In the case of pedophilia, our consistency in carefully screening, choosing and training all who work with children and youth will serve to allay any concerns about favoritism or carelessness, prohibiting those who have harmed children from ministries involving children, while providing the ability to firmly guide those who might harm children into other areas of ministry which serve the Church and contribute to our mission.

Indeed, it is startling in this context to compare Bishop Edwards’ recent conclusion with the Roman Catholic norm.

Bishop Edwards:

It was a multi-level decision which meticulously followed the applicable canons….As I review what was done 2002 – 2004, I find no fault with the actions of any of our people, lay or ordained.

RC norm:

When even a single act of sexual abuse by a priest or deacon is admitted or is established…, the offending priest or deacon will be removed permanently from ecclesiastical ministry.

Similarly, it is unsettling to compare the Roman Catholic norm on child pornography—possession in any form is a grave offense for which a single instance will result in permanent removal from the ministry—with the TEC policy:

10. Church Personnel are prohibited from possessing any sexually oriented materials (magazines, cards, videos, films, clothing etc.) on church property or in the presence of children or youth except as expressly permitted as part of a pre-authorized educational program.

11. Church Personnel are prohibited from using the Internet to view or download any sexually oriented materials on church property or in the presence of children or youth.

12. Church Personnel are prohibited from discussing their own sexual activities, including dreams and fantasies, or discussing their use of sexually oriented or explicit materials such as pornography, videos or materials on or from the Internet, with children or youth.

This carefully worded policy clearly exempts pornography held on private property and not shared with children. A youth worker could have a massive library of child pornography at home without being in violation of this policy.

In response to any claim that ours is a tendentious reading of these TEC policies, it is sufficient merely to note that we are addressing vigorous claims that the knowing reception into the priesthood of a child sex abuser was fully in accord with these policies. We can only conclude that to the extent the inexplicably bad judgment exercised in the case of the reception of Bede Parry was fully in accord with TEC’s canons and policies, this serves not to exonerate that judgment but only to indict those policies. When TEC revised its canons and policies in recent years in light of public scandals, it chose to adopt the model of discretion formerly used by Catholic bishops instead of the strict policy those bishops themselves adopted in response to these scandals. The result is Bede Parry as an Episcopal priest. We have little doubt that most TEC bishops would exercise better judgment than that shown in Nevada, but the biggest scandal in the Parry affair is that after the events of the last decade it can plausibly be claimed that receiving a known child abuser as a priest is fully consistent with TEC’s revised policies.

This analysis reveals serious problems with our canons as they now stand. Clearly they need review and revision. It is also the case, however, that the most adequately drawn laws require for their implementation leaders who exercise judgment in prayer and with accountable concern for Christ’s body. In the case of Bede Perry, the best one can say is that the judgments involved, although layered, were poor. Much is simply unknown with the result that many legitimate questions remain unanswered. Despite the seriousness of the questions, the Presiding Bishop, who had the final decision in this matter, has remained silent. Nevertheless, given the serious nature of the issue involved in this case, the Episcopal Church is right to ask for a more adequate accounting of the reasoning behind the decisions that were made in this case.

Sources:

Statement by Bishop Dan Edwards

Statement by the Office of Public Affairs

Analysis by Allan Haley

2011 John Jay Report (“Causes and Context”)

2004 John Jay Report (“Nature and Scope”)

Roman Catholic Bishops’ “Dallas Charter”

Church Pension Group Model Policy, including 2003 Resolution B008 and the 2003 HOB Pastoral Letter

We have considered carefully the available information related to the allegations against Bishop Mark Lawrence that are currently under review by the Disciplinary Board for Bishops. That information discloses an extended and troubling sequence of events that raises serious questions about transparency in the church.

We note the following:

1. In January 2010, Thomas Tisdale sent nine letters to the Diocese of South Carolina requesting voluminous documents from the diocese and its parishes. He advised the diocese that he had been retained to act “as South Carolina counsel for The Episcopal Church” by the chancellor to the Presiding Bishop. This caused the diocese to conclude that “perhaps 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.” The Presiding Bishop subsequently told the Executive Council that “I think it’s important that people who want to stay Episcopalians there have some representation on behalf of the larger church.”
2. In August/September 2010 the directors of the Episcopal Forum of South Carolina, a group that describes its mission as “primarily to promote The Episcopal Church, its vision and polity, within the Diocese,” wrote to the Executive Council and each member of the House of Bishops requesting an investigation by TEC “leadership” into allegations of “abandonment” by Bishop Lawrence that they attached to their letter. The attached allegations included matters previously raised by Tisdale on behalf of the Presiding Bishop’s office and allegations that were subsequently included, verbatim at points, in the “Addendum” of allegations filed with the Disciplinary Board for Bishops.
3. In October 2010 Canon Gregory Straub replied to the Forum on behalf of the Executive Council that: “the Presiding Bishop’s office is invested in responding in all the ways that are canonically and pastorally possible to the concerns you and others have raised”; “the realities of our church polity mean that there are canonical limits to how her office and the Executive Council can intervene”; “there are, however, other formal and informal ways in which the diocese is connected to the wider church”; and “we are aware that the Forum is making good use of some of these informal connections already.”
4. In March 2011, the President of the House of Deputies, Bonnie Anderson, and her chancellor met with the Forum and others in South Carolina. In response to questions, Ms. Anderson’s chancellor explained the abandonment procedures, including the role of the Presiding Bishop.
5. In April and May 2011 the allegations of abandonment in the “Addendum” that would later be filed with the Disciplinary Board appear to have been put in final form. The footers to the attachments show they were printed out during this period: none is dated after May 1, 2011. The Addendum does not refer to events after May 2011, including the action taken by the Executive Council in June 2011 (described below).
6. Some time prior to July 1, 2011, the lawyer advising the Title IV Review Committee, the predecessor under the former Title IV to the Disciplinary Board, began working on “the Bishop Lawrence information.” When he was again assigned to this matter in October 2011, he was described as “already more than familiar with that information and the task which is now [the Disciplinary Board’s].” This was not disclosed at the time but only in October 2011 when the President of the Disciplinary Board, Bishop Dorsey Henderson, wrote to Board members and made the communication public. Bishop Henderson has not said who initiated this prior investigation but he later said that the Board itself had not initiated such an inquiry “within memory, if ever.”
7. On May 25, 2011, Melinda Lucka, a lawyer and director of the Forum, wrote to the Presiding Bishop, Bonnie Anderson and Gregory Straub (as officers of the Executive Council) “on behalf of” five additional signatories consisting of the chair and four other directors and members of the Forum. This letter asked the Executive Council to nullify several resolutions passed at the 2010 and 2011 conventions of the Diocese of South Carolina. In support of this request, the letter accused the diocese of “disloyalty to and disassociation with” TEC and taking actions in violation of TEC’s Constitution. It also alleged that “the Diocese and its leadership” had rejected “any meaningful effort to uphold the…polity of The Episcopal Church.” Attached to the letter was a sixteen page “Addendum” of diocesan resolutions that is identical to Tab One of the Addendum that is now being considered by the Disciplinary Board. This letter has never been made public nor was it provided to the diocese until September, but we later learned that the Executive Council’s Joint Standing Committee on Governance & Administration “spent considerable time taking up the concerns raised” in this letter on June 16, 2011 at a regular meeting of the Executive Council without informing the diocese.
8. On June 16, 2011, the Joint Standing Committee concluded that a 2007 Executive Council resolution declaring certain actions of other dioceses (Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, Quincy and San Joaquin) “null and void” also applied to recent actions by the Diocese of South Carolina. According to the draft minutes of the Joint Standing Committee, those present included the Presiding Bishop, her chancellor, Ms. Anderson and Canon Straub. The same day, June 16, 2011, Straub wrote Lucka and advised her of the above action and also advised her that “the Joint Standing Committee and Executive Council will continue to monitor the actions of the Annual Convention of the Diocese of South Carolina.” Straub’s letter was not copied to Bishop Lawrence or the diocese nor were they otherwise informed at the time of this Executive Council action. Lucka later stated that she was waiting for this letter to be sent to the diocese before informing others, but there is no instruction in the letter itself that she was to wait or any indication that it would ever be provided to the diocese. Nor is there any indication that Lucka ever considered providing the letter to the diocese herself.
9. On July 1, 2011, the new Title IV became effective and the Disciplinary Board was established. Two of its bishop members were serving on its predecessor, the Title IV Review Committee.
10. In late August 2011 the Diocese of South Carolina received by mail from Straub a copy of the June 16 letter from Straub to Lucka. The letter was postmarked August 26, 2011. Added to the copy in a different font were “cc’s” to Bishop Lawrence and the prior president of the Standing Committee. Straub later explained the delay by saying that he had sent the copy to the diocese at the request of Lucka, but there is no explanation as to why the Executive Council did not inform the diocese in a timely fashion as a matter of its own good order or why Lucka did not do so herself. Straub subsequently sent the diocese a copy of Lucka’s May 25 letter at the request of the diocese.
11. On September 22, 2011, two days after the conclusion of the fall meeting of the House of Bishops, Lucka formally advised the chair of the Forum (one of those on whose behalf the May 25 letter had been sent) of the Straub response of June 16. She stated that she had “waited to let EFSC and others know about this until the Diocese also was informed. I am told the Diocese has received word of the decision.” The Forum immediately made this letter public. Contradicting any implication that this letter was the means by which the Forum was in fact informed of the action by the Executive Council, one of the other signatories to the May 25 letter published this information on his website the day before this letter was sent.
12. One week later, on September 29, 2011, Bishop Henderson informed Bishop Lawrence that “serious charges” of abandonment were under investigation by the Disciplinary Board. Bishop Lawrence was also given a copy of the allegations under review, which were contained in an “Addendum” (described in # 5 above), but was not given any other documents, including the letter or document to which the “Addendum” was attached, that might clarify the context of the allegations. The cover document could have been redacted to protect the identity of individuals. One of the signatories to the May 25 letter has stated on his website without citation of any other source that these allegations against Lawrence were submitted to the Disciplinary Board “during the summer.”
13. The next day, September 30, 2011, the attorney for the Disciplinary Board wrote the diocese requesting copies of certain records as part of the Board’s review of the matter.
14. On October 17, 2011, Bishop Henderson wrote fellow Disciplinary Board members that “because I believe that time is of an essence, I have made a command decision and today requested” that the lawyer who had formerly worked on “the Bishop Lawrence information” replace the attorney who had sent the September 30 letter only later to recuse herself on October 14.

In light of this sequence of events and the manifest importance of this matter for the church as a whole, we believe greater transparency is required than has thus far been displayed. In particular, we suggest the following questions are of sufficient importance to require prompt answers:

1. When was “the Bishop Lawrence information” first brought to the Title IV Review Committee and who initiated this process? When first submitted to that Committee was the information contained in the document entitled “Addendum” that was subsequently provided to Bishop Lawrence? Or was it initially submitted in another form or by other parties?
2. Why was the Lucka letter of May 25 to the Presiding Bishop, Bonnie Anderson and Executive Council, which prompted the Executive Council’s June action, not provided to the diocese at the time or ever made public? What is the relation between its “Addendum” and the (in part identical) “Addendum” now under review by the Disciplinary Board?
3. Why was the June “decision” by the Executive Council handled as it was? Why was the diocese not informed for over two months? How has the Executive Council continued “to monitor the actions” of the South Carolina convention? Who, if anyone, suggested to Lucka that she “wait” to inform others, including those on behalf of whom she had sent her original letter? Who later “told” her to do so on September 22? Was this timing connected in any way with Bishop Henderson’s call to Bishop Lawrence on September 29 and the renewed activity in the Board’s review?
4. To what extent have there been communications among the Presiding Bishop’s office, Bonnie Anderson and her chancellor, the Executive Council, the Title IV Review Committee/Disciplinary Board and the Forum and others in the Diocese of South Carolina about these issues? They have expressed public interest in these matters for some time and have been in communication about them. To what extent have they coordinated their actions?
5. After all this confusing delay and consideration of this matter at all levels of the church for several months, why is time now of the essence?

This matter has now been fast tracked into an abandonment procedure that has but two stops: the Disciplinary Board and the House of Bishops. As Bishop Henderson noted in contrasting abandonment with the normal hearing procedures of Title IV, “the abandonment canon makes no provision for the involvement of the Intake Officer, any of the panels, for appeal to a court of review, or for conciliation (short of retraction or satisfactory denial) for bishops, priests or deacons.”

The church is entitled to transparency about this process, abbreviated as it is.

In the interest of transparency, ACI notes that it supports and works with the Communion Partner dioceses on Title IV and other matters.

UPDATE:   This post was updated on October 23, 2011 to correct paragraph 9 to clarify that two of the Disciplinary Board members were serving on the Title IV Review Committee prior to July 1, 2011.  Other members of the Board served on other committees and task forces related to the drafting, implementation and review of the new Title IV.

One of the allegations now being made against Bishop Lawrence is that the decision by the Diocese of South Carolina to continue to adhere to the prior Title IV canons rather than adopt the controversial new revisions constitutes abandonment by being an open renunciation of the discipline of TEC.  Last March Alan Runyan and I published an article that undertook a careful examination of the history of TEC’s Constitution as it relates to clergy discipline. We started at the beginning in 1789, but gave particular attention to those constitutional revisions in 1901 that the drafters of the new Title IV claim “profoundly changed” the constitutional allocation of authority in the church. That article provides conclusive proof that the Constitution as now in effect allocates authority for discipline of priests and deacons exclusively to the dioceses except for appeals.

This issue has been much debated in the history of TEC, and our article contains a detailed examination of that history. But throughout those years of debates, the result was always the same: disciplinary authority remained with the dioceses. Our article provides compelling proof that the revisions to Title IV are unconstitutional.  It cannot be a renunciation of the discipline of the church to uphold that discipline as specified in the Constitution by resisting unconstitutional encroachment on the diocese’s exclusive authority. One might disagree with the opinion of the Diocese of South Carolina, but one cannot regard upholding at great personal cost the constitutional polity of the church as always understood in the past as an “open renunciation.”

Here are key excerpts from our March article:

The defenders of the recent Title IV revisions acknowledge that from the inception in 1789 and throughout the nineteenth century the General Convention did not have constitutional authority to enact a uniform disciplinary canon for presbyters and deacons. They argue, however, that the constitutional allocation of authority was “profoundly changed” in 1901:

[Quoting the drafters of the Title IV revisions] The wording adopted in 1901, however, profoundly changed this Constitutional scheme. Instead of reserving to the several Dioceses the “mode” ‐ the full range ‐ of disciplinary activities, it very precisely prescribed that which is left to the Dioceses: the “institution” of the “Court” by which Priests or Deacons may be tried. No longer do the Dioceses have exclusive rights with respect to the full range of disciplinary activities; from and after 1901, the only part of those activities exclusively reserved to the Dioceses is the establishment of the Court before which trial, if there is to be one, is to be conducted. As a result of this change, General Convention is now constitutionally free to legislate in the area of clergy discipline.

Mr. Runyan and I then noted:

If the apparently minor wording change from “mode of trying instituted” to “tried by a court instituted” were the profound reversal of constitutional authority claimed by the revisers of Title IV, one would expect legislative history articulating that significance which would otherwise be obscure. The revisers cite none, only a common dictionary. One would also expect that White & Dykman, as a part of its discussion about the many rejected attempts that had been made to limit diocesan authority over the discipline of its clergy, would have noticed this “profound change” if it had been made. They did not because such a reading is simply wrong.

In fact, the legislative history of the 1901 constitutional revision points conclusively in the other direction.

We then considered in detail the history of the 1901 revisions, including the reasons for using the identical new terminology to describe the respective authority of both General Convention and the dioceses and the very intentional change of “may” to “shall” when describing diocesan authority to indicate after decades of debate in the nineteenth century that General Convention had no concurrent authority in this area. We concluded:

With this careful study of the legislative history of Article IX, we can summarize the conclusions and readily see that the 1901 revision to the Constitution did not “profoundly change” the constitutional allocation of exclusive authority for the trial of other clergy in the diocesan conventions:

• The authority of both General Convention and diocesan conventions in their respective areas was preserved, but restated using the terminology of “establish courts” rather than “mode of trying.” If the authority of diocesan conventions was “profoundly changed,” the authority of General Convention was as well.
• The authority of General Convention for appeals is expressed using the same terminology as used in the cases of trials.
• That the authority to “establish courts” was not seen as lesser than the authority to institute the “mode of trying” is apparent from the unsuccessful proposals using that language as a means of transferring authority from diocesan conventions to General Convention.
• Changing “may” to “shall” closed the argument debated in the nineteenth century that the use of “may” signaled concurrent jurisdiction by General Convention.
• White & Dykman do not suggest any change in the allocation of authority in their summary of the changes to the disciplinary article made in 1901.

The March article, “Title IV and the Constitution: Dioceses’ Exclusive Authority,” can be read here.

The pdf version with footnotes can be read here.