US Episcopal Bishops Reject Parallel Authority
I’m really glad to see this. I know it was a difficult decision, but it’s a principled one.
Responding to an ultimatum from leaders of the worldwide Anglican Communion, bishops of the Episcopal Church have rejected a key demand to create a parallel leadership structure to serve the conservative minority of Episcopalians who oppose their church’s liberal stand on homosexuality.
The bishops, meeting privately at a retreat center outside Houston, said they were aware that the stand they were taking could lead to the exclusion of the Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion, an international confederation of churches tied to the Church of England.They said they had a “deep longing” to remain part of the Communion, but were unwilling to compromise the Episcopal Church’s autonomy and its commitment to full equality for all people, including gay men and lesbians.
…What really agitated the American bishops was the primates’ insistence that the Episcopal Church accept a parallel authority structure composed of a “primatial vicar” and a five-member “pastoral council,” a majority of whose members would have been appointed by the primates. Bishops said they had a sense of urgency because names of potential pastoral council members were already being proposed.
Several bishops at the meeting said there was an overwhelming aversion to this plan, shared even by some of the theologically conservative bishops. The Episcopal Church defines itself, in part, by its democratic approach to decision-making, in which the bishops share power with the clergy and the laity. Many bishops feared that this new arrangement would grant too much power to foreign primates, many of whom have a more authoritarian approach to church leadership.
…In a strongly worded assertion of autonomy, the bishops said in their statement that any attempt to impose this scheme “violates our founding principles as the Episcopal Church following our own liberation from colonialism.” The bishops included a reminder that the Episcopal Church long ago declared itself independent from the Church of England.
Several bishops also said in interviews that they believed that the pastoral council arrangement was intended to strengthen the position of conservative parishes or dioceses that want to leave the Episcopal Church and take their property with them. The breakaway parishes could claim that they came under the new pastoral council guided by the primates, and that the council was the highest authority in the Episcopal Church’s hierarchy.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has so far refused to meet with the US bishops, and has pronounced the bishops’ statement “discouraging”. I find his response discouraging.
March 22nd, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Having been raised Church of Christ, I’ve always found that Catholicism and the Episcopalians sooooo formal and complicated. Priests of this and bishops of that…… More military than religion.
Whatever happened to when someone just preached to a group of folks standing around in a circle, like in the New Testament, without all these “rules”?
My husband was raised Episcopal and any service I ever attended was so confusing. Stand up, sit down, now kneel. I needed knee pads and an instruction manual just to get through it.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:01 am
Yeah, the Episcopal service is very liturgical (if that’s the proper word), but I give Episcopalians big snaps for being way ahead of many other denominations — including my own — when it comes to full inclusion of all people.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:55 am
“The Archbishop of Canterbury has so far refused to meet with the US bishops, and has pronounced the bishops’ statement “discouraging”. I find his response discouraging.”
I cannot believe ECUSA has done this. Basically, they have said, “we know that we have disrupted the Communion, but we don’t care. You all can suck it.” They are so hell-bent on pushing their agenda, they don’t care about the effect on the worldwide Anglican Communion, the national church, the individual diosceses, much less individual Episcopalians. That troubles me — and I, too, find it discouraging.
We criticize George W. Bush, on this blog often for taking a stance, which he believes to be principled, and sticking with it regardless of the consequences. He does so because he believes that history will vindicate him. The leaders in ECUSA believe the same thing. They are fighting what they see as an ideological war, for which they are willing to sacrifice the church. They are guilty of the same demagoguery that George W. Bush is guilty of, and they will ruin the church just as Bush is ruining the country. Mark my words.
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:22 am
Baudrillard, a couple of questions here — and I’m being serious, not snarky. First, aren’t the primates doing the same thing you say the US bishops are doing? They are the ones who gave an ultimatum. Second, isn’t it true, as the article says, that the Episcopal Church is an independent entity that is part of a larger confederation of churches? As such, shouldn’t it have the freedom to make its own decisions without being backed into a corner?
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:26 am
So you think the “American” church should endorse death sentences for homosexuals? Because Akinola in particular has been extremely vocal in his support of that kind of legislation in his country, and most of the “conservative” bishops in his camp agree.
This disagreement isn’t just semantics any more — the stakes are literally life and death.
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:27 am
Sorry, Kathy, my comment was addressed to Baudrillard.
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:13 pm
I read yesterday that the bishop of Uganda prevented his diocese from receiving over $350,000 raised by a Pennsylvania diocese for the purpose of creating an AIDS clinic, because that diocese had supported Gene Robinson. Since this happened in 2005, I assume preventable deaths have already taken place as a result of his Godly decision.
Baudrillard, I too am saddened to see the worldwide communion, and possibly my own conservative diocese, shattered in this way, but I cannot criticize the ECUSA bishops for finally taking a stand, after years of footing the bill for international conferences so they could be told one more time how sinful they were. The church is one place where it’s fine to fight an ideological war, in my opinion. At least no bombs will be falling in this one.
And yes, Kathy, the American Episcopal church is indeed an independent entity. A war was fought not so long ago about that idea, too. And if conservative parishes or dioceses in this country want to leave the national church, well, it will hardly be the first time a Protestant denomination has splintered.
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Kathy,
As to your first, “aren’t the primates doing the same thing you say the US bishops are doing? They are the ones who gave an ultimatum,” I take it you’re refering to my comment about staying the course and thinking history will vindicate. I would say that the Primates are not engaging in such behavior for a few reasons. First, they have been flexible in their efforts to reconcile ECUSA to the Communion. They have taken what I consider a moderate approach (urged ECUSA to take steps to undo the harm done by the actions of the ‘03 convention), as opposed to the more radical alternatives proposed (Cut ECUSA off entirely from the Communion, etc.). Second, and more important, the Primates’ position is not one of ideology; it’s one of necessity — i.e., in efforts to maintain the unity of the Communion. Their position does not depend on history vindicating them. Maintaining the unity of the Communion is a “Good” here and now, as it will be tomorrow, and I touch on this point briefly below.
As for your second regarding the freedom of ECUSA to maintain its autonomy without having to bend to the will of the Communion, you are correct. ECUSA is only part of a larger communion of Anglican churches, with no one having a greater say than the other. It is certainly free to “make its own decisions without being backed into a corner,” as you suggest. I would add this, however. As part of a larger communion, ECUSA has an obligation to the Communion AND to its congregants to maintain that fellowship. Just as we are all members incorporate of the body of Christ, and no person can compel another to do something for the greater good of the whole, individually, we seek to maintian our Christian community. I wouldn’t intentionally do something to disrupt my communion with another brother or sister in Christ. If I felt that, as a matter of principle, I had to pursue a course of action that might disrupt my communion with another in the body of Christ, I think it is incumbent on me to do so in a diplomatic fashion that does the least damage to my communion with others. Maintaining the communion is essential to the Christian experience, I believe. It is in and through the communion that God works. ECUSA’s reckless disregard of the sanctity of that communion it what bothers me most.
Kathy, you know that my position on this issue is not one of ideology — it’s one that personal for me — and I know you’re not being snarky. Of course I can’t say the same for Tricia. And so I debate whether to dignify her comment with a response and run the risk of answering a question that does not seek a response. But to be fair to all, here goes.
Tricia, you ask if I think ECUSA “should endorse death sentences for homosexuals” because that’s what Akinola and other “conservative” bishops advocate. I think you misunderstand my position in this debate. While I may espouse a “conservative” viewpoint in this dialogue from your perspective, I am not one of those that believes the African Provinces have it right. Their hypocrisy is blatant — they condemn ECUSA for its stance on homosexuality, yet they permit polygomy and idol worship. No, no, Tricia, that is not my stance. If you have any interest in where I stand in this debate, feel free to see my earlier posts on the matter: http://www.queervoice.net/kmcmullen/2007/02/19/dont-let-the-door-hit-you-in-the-ass/#comments
Your binary approach to this issue (the suggestion that anyone who disagrees with ECUSA in this debate MUST endorse the absurd ideology of the extreme right) is disheartening. Obviously, the ad hominem attack was just too tempting. I’ll let it slide this time. If, however, you are interested in maintaining a meaningful dialogue, I’d be happy to oblidge.
March 23rd, 2007 at 4:03 pm
I wasn’t actually being snarky, just blunt.
Binary or not, in my opinion, continuing in communion with murderers (who are actively pursuing murder as policy, not just the “incidental deaths” that Del mentioned, to be clear) is an interesting position for a Christian to take. Back when I thought this debate was over ordinations and marriages, I understood trying to stay in communion. I don’t agree with those stances, but at least they aren’t out-and-out murder. However, a very little research shows just how horrifying Akinola’s policies are.
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Did y’all know that Rep. Aderholt (R-Ala) is reportedly (source Washington Monthly) of Falls Church. Yep. That would be the SAME Falls Church that recently voted to elect Akinola their personal religious leader. At the time of the vote, Akinola’s support for the Nigerian legislation was well known in Anglican and Episcopal circles and heavily reported on by the Washington media.
March 24th, 2007 at 7:32 am
I understand the desire to maintain the Communion, but as Tricia and Tom point out, giving in on this issue isn’t just giving in to conservative US Episcopalians who don’t like gay people but wouldn’t countenance doing physical harm to them. This is giving in to people whose homophobia rises to the level of murderous. Numerous denominations split over slavery back in the 19th century, and I know there were many good people at the time who objected to taking a stand that would cause dissension in the Christian church.
Of course, hindsight is easy — living through this is not. I recognize that it’s a complex issue and quite painful for those who are part of the Episcopal church.
March 24th, 2007 at 9:15 am
I’m wondering if the good people up in North Alabama have asked Rep Aderholt why he apparently supports the banning of freedom of religion, assembly, association, and expression implicit in his membership’s decision to align with Peter Akinola.
I’m wondering if any of the good Episcopalians in his district are aware of his reported activities with the schismatics (he says that he is a Congregationalist in Alabama).
Someone in his district should ask him if he voted to elect Akinola as his personal religious leader, how he feels about the Nigerian law, if he voted in the Falls Church election - what is a Congregationalist doing voting in an Episcopalian election, Is he a Congregationalist or an Anglican, etc.
By the way, while Falls Church is reportedly the spirtual home of Aderholt’s buddies like Tucker Carlson, Robert Bork, Jr., and Attorney General Gonzales, etc., the only other elected official that is reportedly a member of CANA (the Akinola-led Anglicans in the USA) is Jack Kingston (R-Savannah).