Yes.

The argument that TEC is merely a federation of dioceses, each its own independent hierarchy, is bootless.  Various provisions in TEC’s constitution and canons require that, in every diocese, A) the religious ministry, and B) the real property, must be under the direct or indirect control of clergy who have vowed to conform to the “discipline” of the Episcopal Church, not that of the diocese.  That brute fact establishes pretty clearly that dioceses are constitutionally subordinate to TEC.

(See this posting I did awhile back for a more detailed discussion, with citations.)

Fr Harris wants TEC first of all to understand itself as an expression of Christianity defined by the borders of a nation state rather than as an expression of Catholic Christianity that happens to be located within the boundaries of a nation state.

Brilliant.

Dr. Turner and ACI have done what I would have deemed impossible yesterday- boiled down the ecclesial error of TEC into a single concise sentence.  I think we could substitute “The national leadership of TEC” for “Fr. Harris”, and the observation would still be accurate.

Although all bishops in TEC are ecclesiastical peers, TEC is institutionally hierarchical.  General Convention is the top of the institutional hierarchy.  Article V of the Constitution requires an act of “unqualified accession” by a diocese-in-formation, as part of its diocesan constitution, before it becomes a diocese.  Just as a state of the United States has no right of secession, a diocese of The Episcopal Church has no right of withdrawal.

As St. Ignatius of Antioch said, “Let all things be done by you with good order in Christ.  Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ… .”  I had assumed that by virtue of this ecclessial community calling itself Episcopal that it was following the catholic tradition announced by St. Ignatius.  I think that Turner has it right when he says that the national church theory is a legal strategy.

DC, laity, deacons and priests conform to the discipline of their diocesan bishop.  The bishops have agreed to institute a uniform discipline, but that doesn’t imply that the authority for the discipline derives from other than the bishop.  Nor does it imply a “loose federation” as the bishops make up a college.

2. D. C. Toedt wrote:

B) the real property, must be under the direct or indirect control of clergy who have vowed to conform to the “discipline” of the Episcopal Church, not that of the diocese.

Not quite! Those of us who were ordained before 1978 made a different vow to follow “the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this Church hath received them.” Now perhaps the modified vow does impact younger clergy. But I would ask the question of whether the promise to “worship” TEC is not tantamount to idolatry. Be that as it may, I think this notion of eternal binding to “discipline” in flux is doubtful on numerous grounds, as I shall discuss in a moment.

4. stabill wrote:

Article V of the Constitution requires an act of “unqualified accession” by a diocese-in-formation, as part of its diocesan constitution, before it becomes a diocese.

I’m not all certain that the notion of “unqualified accession” as interpreted is legally defensible. Let me give an example from, of all things, property law. There was a time in this country when property owners, upon selling their property put into the deed contract a restrictive covenant, that the property was never to be sold to blacks, Jews, Irish or whatever. Every time afterwards when the property was transferred, the purchasers had to sign off on that restriction, supposedly in perpetuity. In recent years the courts have ruled that those sorts of restrictive covenants are null and void.

Under the “unqualified accession” interpretation being offered, a newly formed diocese’s convention is forever bound to TEC regardless of anything that General Convention might subsequently do. General Convention seemingly could require the sacrifice of live chickens on every altar “held in trust” for TEC for the Eucharistic meal; and under the “unqualified accession” a diocese would be powerless to withdraw its accession. The argument seems to be (as is the argument about clergy vows) that in giving “unqualified accession” (or a promise to obey the “discipline” of TEC), one is required to bind oneself to something one cannot possibly know at the time and which may be utterly foreign to what one understands at the time—and even binds all generations to come to that blind obedience. It is utterly irrational! Given that interpretation of “unqualified accession” or a vow to obey a discipline which is eternally in flux, no rational person should ever agree to become a deacon, priest or bishop in TEC and no body of rational people should ever seek admission to TEC’s General Convention!

When I promised to follow “the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this Church hath received them” it was to something knowable and known (or should have been after three years of theological education in a TEC seminary) at the time the vow was made. To promise to follow the discipline of TEC is simply to buy a pig in poke. Don’t do it, folks!

Furthermore, I would suggest that the argument of vows to follow the discipline of the TEC is toothless. If we take that vow to discipline seriously, then those bishops who ordained the Philadelphia 11 should have been immediately presented, tried and deposed. If we take that vow to discipline seriously, a certain priest who rewrote the Baptismal Covenant, substituted appointed Scripture with readings from the Qur’an and invited a Muslim to preach should have been presented, tried and deposed rather than elected to become a bishop of TEC. If we take that vow to discipline seriously, those priests (and the bishop who allow and even encourage) “open communion” should be presented, tried and deposed. If we take that vow to discipline seriously, then a certain Presiding Bishop should be presented, tried and deposed for autocratically dismissing standing committee members, for calling rump diocesan conventions and for appointing bishops. And those bishops and priests who perform same-sex “marriages” should be presented, tried and deposed. Those clergy who substitute language for the prescribed liturgical formulas such as the Holy Trinity, God and the like should be presented, tried and deposed.

Really, now. Maybe General Convention needs to adopt something or other that clarifies what constitutional provisions and canons dioceses and clergy are required to follow and which they may violate. As it is, no one in TEC can possibly know that to which “unqualified accession” applies or that to which the vow to “discipline” applies.

It’s always good to come upon statements that take the discussion forward. This statement appears to me to be a helpful item on that path, so I would underscore it here:

“If one looks at these constitutions [e.g., ELCA, UMC] one finds the operative legal terms indicating supremacy, subordination, preemption and finality.  One does not find these terms in TEC’s constitution. The point is fundamental.  As our colleague Mark McCall has pointed out it is inconceivable that the men who drafted TEC’s constitution and at the same time ‘were developing the hierarchical structure of the United States government…would have would have intended a centralized church hierarchy to be inferred from silence.  They knew full well from their own experience that silence meant an absence of hierarchy.’”

As the author of the section of The Episcopalians dealing with the setting-up of PECUSA (constitution, canons, role of bishops, etc.), I would say that my immediate response—but lawyers: please don’t call (again)!—is that this analysis is correct.

But leaving my possibly worthless opinion aside, IF this is true, then it really is something that should be looked at carefully. Some of us have been following this quasi-technical but nonetheless important matter of the role of the bishop within TEC for some time. Many of us are inclined to see that Philip Turner, Rowan Williams, and others are on the right path—and that this analysis is helpful. Helpful because it attempts to state historical realities in a fresh way relevant to present concerns.

Indeed, relevant to pressing concerns, for the hour is already upon us—as I’m sure they’re feeling in DioSC right now—when things need to happen and accommodations need to be made. The long journey is becoming more clear: a more-unified Communion, where MRI, talked about for what? 40 years?, might come to mean a great deal—not just in terms of money and setting up and assisting new provinces but in structure and identity for the new century.

Geoffrey Fisher assisted boldly and successfully with this process in the 1950s. The present Anglican Communion needs to do what sociologists of religion would say all groups must do from time to time in order to survive: develop a clear, robust identity and structure. The steps so far have been painfully small and slow, but they seem to be moving in one direction. I mean the steps of mainstream Anglicanism.

This first part is meant to be satirical:
As one part of the argument is seriously made regarding ‘homosexuality” that Jesus didn’t say anything about whether you can be or not, and thus the scripture is inconclusive re: permissiveness (marriage contract aside), and thus same-sex blessings, marriages, sexual activity in general is allowable, so why isn’t the same argument granted to those dioceses desiring to depart from TECUSA when the Canons do not say conclusively that a diocese, voting in successive conventions, may not withdraw (Dennis Canon aside)!

The underlying irony is that there is so much more in God’s teaching in scripture, consistently through both Old and New Testaments, that clearly places the standard of holiness for sexual activity only within the marriage of a man and a woman than can possibly be found in the Constitution and Canons regarding the denial of withdrawal of a diocese from TECUSA.

Reflection on satire and irony:
I will say that I appreciate the enemy of scripture’s teaching’s willingness to appeal to Jesus and His Words, Jesus who is the one and only central authority.  However, it is a false appeal.  It is sad and tragic, really :  Appealing to Jesus and His teaching while at the same time not willing to concede any of their own agenda’s demands, thus leaving no room for personal submission to the Very One who demands concession, and thus no room for humility.

Application:
The Way forward (to tie into hot discussion right now for those “traditional” Episcopalians staying in TECUSA) must then be clearly characterized by these two things first, and at the least:
1)  Proclaim that “Jesus is Lord”:  the proclaiming in all forms and methods and venues and media, that “Jesus is the Master, Lord, One and Only, the Main, the Objective”, whatever term you are willing to state and define in order to say that all polities, all ecclesiologies, all agendas, all justice, all liberties, all teachings are and must be subservient to Jesus Christ.
Anybody and everybody in the Church can pick up that banner and wave it.  Do not allow Jesus to be removed from the discussion of what and who is a Christian.
2)  Inclusion of The Bible demanded:  the teaching of God, as found primarily in scripture, and especially that which is shown to be consistent throughout Old and New Testament, must not be presumed nor assumed, but known and then demanded to be inserted and recognized in every discussion that has anything to do with the Teaching and Worship of the Church, and the Discipleship that is demanded and afforded to each and every follower of Jesus.
This includes the Constitution and Canons.
  Anybody and everybody in the Church can pick up that banner and wave it.  Do not allow God’s teaching as given in the Bible to be removed from the discussion of what and who defines a Christian in this Church.

All this can be done without resorting to styles and techniques that have been stereotypically (but not without reason) applied to other denominations and categories of Christianity.  As Episcopalians, we carry an Anglican heritage of courteous understatement in argument (stereotypically trumpeted as “see how they love each other”).  However, let us not surrender nor relinquish an equal element to our heritage, that is, of carrying this argument with civil, even polite, relentlessness.  And when the time comes for holy anger, do so without losing your “reason”, your mind’s clear focus submitted to the Holy Spirit.

There is more, of course, to be identified for “anybody and everybody”, especially regarding the Holy Spirit, and Prayer, which are given for anybody and everybody in Christ.

Ken Peck [#6] writes:

Those of us who were ordained before 1978 made a different vow to follow “the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this Church hath received them.” Now perhaps the modified vow does impact younger clergy.

Ken, if your diocese does annual renewal of ordination vows, I assume you too have recited the ‘79 vows — or perhaps your bishop allows you vieux to renew yours separately, using the wording you spoke when you were ordained?

Incidentally, I can’t find the formulation you quote in the ‘28 BCP. The closest it comes is in the consecration of a bishop:

IN the Name of God, Amen. I, N., chosen Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in N., do promise conformity and obedience to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. So help me God, through Jesus Christ.

And for the ordination of a priest:

Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same ....

I’m guessing perhaps you were ordained in some other church?

————————

Ken also writes:

But I would ask the question of whether the promise to “worship” TEC is not tantamount to idolatry.

Surely you don’t expect us to fall for that:  In the phrase you seem to be deliberately distorting, TEC isn’t the object of the worship, it’s a practitioner thereof, just as it’s a practitioner of the discipline of Christ and a propounder of the doctrine of Christ.

9. D. C. Toedt wrote:

Ken Peck [#6] writes:

Those of us who were ordained before 1978 made a different vow to follow “the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this Church hath received them.” Now perhaps the modified vow does impact younger clergy.

Ken, if your diocese does annual renewal of ordination vows, I assume you too have recited the ‘79 vows — or perhaps your bishop allows you vieux to renew yours separately, using the wording you spoke when you were ordained?

I haven’t lived in “my diocese” since before 1978; and as a worker priest I have always been obliged to work for my employer when those renewal services were held. As far as I know there is no requirement that clergy renew their vows or even to “renew” altered vows (I’m not sure how one does that!). And I know of a number of senior priests who refuse to engage in that act of supererogation. If you’ve made a vow, you’ve made a vow; you don’t need to keep “renewing” it.

And for the ordination of a priest:

Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same

I’m guessing perhaps you were ordained in some other church?

Yes, that’s the exact wording. The point remains that in making that vow, one is making a promise to do something that is a known quantity at the time—something that has been received rather than some future novelty which might be introduced; something that can in fact be known when the vow is made, rather than some unknown something that lies in the future. That is to require him to check in not only his brain, but his soul as well. It’s not really possible for a rational person to promise to do whatever he knows not what. That’s why I would advise no one to take the vow as it exists in the 1978 BCP.

Well, maybe I was ordained in a “different church”. It is certain that TEC today isn’t the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of American in which I was ordained in by Bishops Earl Dicus and Everett Jones in the Diocese of West Texas in 1962 & 1963. I’m pretty sure neither bishop would recognize TEC as being the same church as the one they shepherded; I sure don’t recognize it.

And another interesting difference between the 1928 BCP ordination rites and the 1978 BCP ordination rites. The rite for the ordination of deacons and priests make no reference whatever to “the Episcopal Church”—rather we were ordained in “the Church of God”.

It is, I believe, more appropriate for Christian ministers to follow the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ, as the Lord has commanded, and this Church has received the same and to serve in the Church of God. After all, it’s about God and Christ. It is, after all, in keeping with the first promise of the Baptismal Covenant—to continue in the apostles’ teaching.

9. D. C. Toedt wrote:

Surely you don’t expect us to fall for that:  In the phrase you seem to be deliberately distorting, TEC isn’t the object of the worship, it’s a practitioner thereof, just as it’s a practitioner of the discipline of Christ and a propounder of the doctrine of Christ.

I think there is a real problem with that language. And it is exemplified in the notion that General Convention has absolute authority. Even the old Act of Supremacy limited the monarch’s with the phrase “insofar as the Law of God allows”. Until recent years there was a notion that the ultimate authority was God and his Word. To make General Convention the highest authority is, quite literally, an act of idolatry—giving to mortal what is God’s alone.

Btw, I notice that you very carefully avoid the real argument I have made—that one cannot give irrevocable “unqualified accession” or make a vow to conform to some doctrine, discipline and worship where the object is to be changed radically in the future.

I’m sure that the Episcopalians in convention in most dioceses of TEC had no idea that in giving “unqualified accession” to the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States that they would be effectively signing over all church property to some national bureaucracy. Had they realized that, I am sure that many would have been most reluctant to do so.

Ken Peck [#12], the “unqualified accession” of a diocese means that its leaders bind themselves and their successors in office to accept church decisions, no matter how much they disagree, when those decisions are duly made by the church’s canonical governing bodies. 

(Your scornful reference to those governing bodies as merely “some national bureaucracy” suggests an exaggerated sense of personal authority, and points the way to anarchy.)

If a decision by the national church so troubles a diocese’s leaders that they cannot in good conscience accept it, their only honorable choice — and, I predict, the only one that will be supported by most secular authorities when it comes to property ownership — is for them to resign their offices.

Ken Peck [#11], you seem to think that “the Law of God” is something that 1) is fixed and immutable, and 2) can be definitively and comprehensively known, for all times, occasions, and circumstances. Many thoughtful followers of Jesus would disagree, for reasons we don’t need to go into here. 

(We’ll also leave aside the oft-cited problem that the Law of God supposedly is stated, definitively and only, in those particular writings that certain second-century church leaders — bureaucrats, if you will — took it upon themselves to proclaim canonical.)

12. D. C. Toedt wrote:

Ken Peck [#12], the “unqualified accession” of a diocese means that its leaders bind themselves and their successors in office to accept church decisions, no matter how much they disagree, when those decisions are duly made by the church’s canonical governing bodies.

If that is actually what it means, then no rational Christian should ever give “unqualified accession”, because there is no way on God’s green earth to know to what one has acceded or to what one has bound future generations. I would suspect that no diocese of TEC in giving “unqualified accession” thought they were binding future Episcopalians to a political organization that promotes abortion and sexual immorality among other un-Christian novelties.

If a decision by the national church so troubles a diocese’s leaders that they cannot in good conscience accept it, their only honorable choice — and, I predict, the only one that will be supported by most secular authorities when it comes to property ownership — is for them to resign their offices.

I would say rather, that if bishops, priests and deacons cannot remain true to their vows to adhere to the doctrine and discipline of the BCP and the canons of TEC they should resign their offices instead of, as is the present case, bastardizing the BCP and Creeds, and performing rites which are contrary to the teaching of Scripture and thumbing their noses at the Communion and the Archbishop and the rest of the universal Christian Church.

13. D. C. Toedt wrote:

Ken Peck [#11], you seem to think that “the Law of God” is something that 1) is fixed and immutable, and 2) can be definitively and comprehensively known, for all times, occasions, and circumstances.

That seems to be the witness of Scripture, the prophets, the evangelists, the apostles, the Church Fathers and even Jesus. We pledge in the baptismal covenant to continue in the apostles’ teaching. Perhaps we should pray for the humility to follow that first promise, rather than assert the pride of our post-modern experience as the standard of faith. It would appear that Paul knew what the law of God was. Nor does he give the impression that it changes from time to time and from circumstance to circumstance.

For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. (RSV Romans 7:22-23)

D. C. Toedt continued:

(We’ll also leave aside the oft-cited problem that the Law of God supposedly is stated, definitively and only, in those particular writings that certain second-century church leaders — bureaucrats, if you will — took it upon themselves to proclaim canonical.)

Those “second-century church leaders” weren’t bureaucrats. They were one an all—without exception—apostles, shepherds, pastors and teachers of what we would call today a “parish congregation.” Furthermore, they weren’t the ones who decided what “particular writings” were to be the standard of faith—i.e., canonical. That decision involved generations of the Christian faithful and amounts to a consensus of the faithful over nearly 2,000 years. It is a decision which is ratified by TEC in its Constitution and canons, the Articles of Religion, the BCP and the lectionary. That canon is, for the Anglican Communion, the first and primary source of doctrine.