Michael:  Did I ever argue that TEC was not hierarchical in any sense?  There are many different types of hierarchies and many facets of organization.  Ecclesiastically, TEC is organized into a diffused hierarchy.  This hierarchy is made up of the several dioceses joining together into one unified, voluntary organization.  The issue here is not whether TEC is a hierarchy, but rather what kind of hierarchy is it?  Things aren’t so black and white as you would like to make them out.  In my opinion, the courts need to have it made clear to them that the Roman Catholic Church model is not the only form of hierarchy that exists.

With regards to property ownership, there is a different form of organization.  In this area, TEC has chosen to organize itself legally on a congregational model.  Were TEC anything other then a church, the concept that one organization could declare a unilateral trust over the assets of a different, legally independent organization would be unthinkable.  For the most part, parishes are independent legal corporations which hold the title to parish property, and have been that way since the beginning.  If a parish voluntarily turned its title over to the diocese or national church, that would be one thing.  But for a separate legal organization to unilaterally declare a trust over some other organization’s property is legally unthinkable except that the courts have decided to make certain kinds of churches exempt from normal law (and I have a major constitutional concern over this as I think it flies in the face of the Establishment Clause).  It is my opinion that if a church wishes to be treated as a hierarchical church, then it ought to legally organize itself as one, and not depend on the courts to create a special exemption for churches to circumvent the law of the land.

So things are not so black and white as you would like to think Michael.

James Wirrel - 24 October 2009 05:01 PM

The absence of a specific prohibition is not permission, its absence is a sign that it is impossible.

This is, of course, nonsensical Michael.  The term “accession” was a carefully chosen term.  Nation-states “accede” to a treaty.  It would be absurd to state that once a nation-state accedes to a treaty that it is “impossible” for them to withdraw.  The right to withdraw from a voluntary organization or treaty is assumed.  Your argument is further weakened that for “missionary dioceses” - i.e. those dioceses considered to be less autonomous than full dioceses - there is a specific procedure for them to leave TEC.  It would be absurd to state that a full diocese has less rights then a dependent diocese.  Therefore, this adds to the argument that the absence of any prohibition against a diocese leaving is a sign that such a disaffiliation is well within the rights of the diocese.

Michael - I enjoy interacting with you and tweaking your nose every now and again.  I am not the one saying “those folks are not worth talking with” or “those people are just conspirators” or “those people are criminals” or “those people are schismatics”.  Based on your comments, it seems that there are precious few Christians in the world today who you don’t classify as wild-eyed fundamentalists, crazy Baptists, schismatics, Popish fanatics, etc.  I find your comments amusing because you embody so many of the characteristics which you so loudly condemn in others.  So I do welcome your contributions and am often amused by them.  But I do enjoy tweaking the noses of folks (both on the left and the right) who seem so certain of their own positions and seem so quick to condemn those who don’t agree with them.

Only for missionary dioceses beyond the boundaries of the US are there canonical provisions for affiliation with another Church in the Anglican Communion. While arguments from silence are risky, I see this provision as another indication that secession of diocese is impossible.

James (#31), it seems be a little murkier here in the Diocese of NC where parishes may indeed be listed in the Registry of Deeds as owners of the property, as ours is, but may derive their tax-exempt status from the diocese.  When donors request a copy of our tax exemption form (501(c)3 certification), we send the one for the diocese which identifies that corporate entity and its constituent parishes (though not separately by name).  Our parish is not separately incorporated, at least for tax purposes.  For what it’s worth, we were organized as a mission congregation in 1959 and became a parish a couple of years later, more recently than many congregations.  At my former (older) parish in Massachusetts, we had our own tax ID as distinct from the diocese.

-Bob

I think Anglicans are in for a long period of consideration of the nature of our Communion. I may well change my mind about some aspects of my understanding of this as the conversation continues. I believe, however, that the idea that the national and regional churches are parts of a whole, i.e., the Anglican Communion, is misleading. The only “whole” that matters is the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Neither the the Roman Catholic Church, nor the Anglican Communion is that Church.

I actually like the idea of flavors, but I would use it describe the Roman Catholic Church as well as all the others. There is, however, no one flavor of Anglicanism. Perhaps one might say we are all chocolate, but different varieties of that flavor. The differences are products of history and context. Attempts to make our flavors uniform are misguided and doomed to failure, not because progressives in North America will resist them, but because Anglicans in the post-colonial global south will as well. As with chocolate, there are boundaries for Anglicans. Just as one may judge white chocolate as not chocolate at all, there can be judgments that certain Anglican churches aren’t actually Anglican. The current debates are about the standards for being authentically Anglican. A minimalist position might be acceptance of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and being in communion with Canterbury. Clearly that is not enough for many and the debate is still going on.

One observation about the Orthodox Churches: the installation of the President and Dean of Episcopal Divinity School took place last Friday at Holy Trinity Armenian Orthodox Church. In his greeting, the pastor of that church thanked the Episcopal Church for the welcome that was extended to Armenian immigrants, especially after the genocide. It was Episcopal congregations that provided places for Armenians and others to worship. Whatever differences there may be - and there are differences - the history of Episcopal Church hospitality has not been forgotten.

Bob Kaynor - 28 October 2009 12:46 PM

James (#31), it seems be a little murkier here in the Diocese of NC where parishes may indeed be listed in the Registry of Deeds as owners of the property, as ours is, but may derive their tax-exempt status from the diocese.  When donors request a copy of our tax exemption form (501(c)3 certification), we send the one for the diocese which identifies that corporate entity and its constituent parishes (though not separately by name).  Our parish is not separately incorporated, at least for tax purposes.  For what it’s worth, we were organized as a mission congregation in 1959 and became a parish a couple of years later, more recently than many congregations.  At my former (older) parish in Massachusetts, we had our own tax ID as distinct from the diocese.

-Bob

The Episcopal Church and all its dioceses and congregations were granted tax exempt status in the legislation that created that exemption. Dioceses and congregations need not apply for tax-exempt status.

Daniel Weir - 28 October 2009 12:47 PM

I think Anglicans are in for a long period of consideration of the nature of our Communion. I may well change my mind about some aspects of my understanding of this as the conversation continues. I believe, however, that the idea that the national and regional churches are parts of a whole, i.e., the Anglican Communion, is misleading. The only “whole” that matters is the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Neither the the Roman Catholic Church, nor the Anglican Communion is that Church.

I actually like the idea of flavors, but I would use it describe the Roman Catholic Church as well as all the others.

And Roman Catholics would generally agree—depending on what we mean by “Roman Catholic.” “Roman Catholic” is arguably one flavor within the “Catholic Church” (as RCs define it) or Roman Communion. There are, after all, Eastern Catholic churches.

The problem with the position you articulate, as I see it, is that it leaves the “Catholic Church” as something intangible which cannot hold us accountable and indeed cannot actually _do_ anything. And that is clearly not what it meant in the early Church. Ever since reading Newman’s _Essay on Development_ many years ago, I’ve been highly dubious about the idea that there was ever an “unidivided” Catholic Church which has now split into fragments which are no longer the Catholic Church. My reading of more revisionist scholars (who follow the lead of Bauer’s _Orthodoxy and Heresy_) has only confirmed this. Radner makes as good a case as one can for this kind of position, but I don’t think he ever really addresses the question of whether there was a time when the Church was not divided, not in exile, not under God’s judgment.

Edwin

Daniel Weir - 28 October 2009 12:50 PM

The Episcopal Church and all its dioceses and congregations were granted tax exempt status in the legislation that created that exemption. Dioceses and congregations need not apply for tax-exempt status.

And therein lies the tale.  In Maryland parishes were not incorporated at all until maybe the 1960s when the state forced them to be. That specific benefits derive from our pre-existence as a connected church through General Convention. That connection pre-exists Dioceses since we were originally organized by states.  Only later were states divided into Dioceses and mission work in new areas produced groups who applied to join.

So while there is some murkiness, I suppose, that murkiness presuppose connection not congregationalism.  Moreover that connectedness specified processes for decision making a rule of our life together in which specific parties would have good and bad days, but that was part of the process.

One when a constituency of people joined who were less committed to the denomination than they were to doctrine (and this from a very interesting but hugely overlooked post by Dr. Radner himself [see even I can quote the devil to my own purpose *s*]) did we see affiliation start to hing on correct belief and not loyalty to the church and its processes.

That is the root of all this recent and convenient revisionist history and wishful ecclesiology.

Michael, in alluding to Ephraim Radner, you mention you can quote the devil to your own purpose.  Well, I know the devil real well, and I know Ephraim pretty well, and I can assure in Bensonite fashion, that Ephraim Radner is no devil.

Edwin Tait - 28 October 2009 12:56 PM

Daniel Weir - 28 October 2009 12:47 PM

I think Anglicans are in for a long period of consideration of the nature of our Communion. I may well change my mind about some aspects of my understanding of this as the conversation continues. I believe, however, that the idea that the national and regional churches are parts of a whole, i.e., the Anglican Communion, is misleading. The only “whole” that matters is the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Neither the the Roman Catholic Church, nor the Anglican Communion is that Church.

I actually like the idea of flavors, but I would use it describe the Roman Catholic Church as well as all the others.

And Roman Catholics would generally agree—depending on what we mean by “Roman Catholic.” “Roman Catholic” is arguably one flavor within the “Catholic Church” (as RCs define it) or Roman Communion. There are, after all, Eastern Catholic churches.

The problem with the position you articulate, as I see it, is that it leaves the “Catholic Church” as something intangible which cannot hold us accountable and indeed cannot actually _do_ anything. And that is clearly not what it meant in the early Church. Ever since reading Newman’s _Essay on Development_ many years ago, I’ve been highly dubious about the idea that there was ever an “unidivided” Catholic Church which has now split into fragments which are no longer the Catholic Church. My reading of more revisionist scholars (who follow the lead of Bauer’s _Orthodoxy and Heresy_) has only confirmed this. Radner makes as good a case as one can for this kind of position, but I don’t think he ever really addresses the question of whether there was a time when the Church was not divided, not in exile, not under God’s judgment.

Edwin

How we are to be held held accountable is the sticking point. Having been a Quaker for a time, I am a great fan of consensus, but am aware of the danger in that of the tyranny of the minority. While the situation in the Anglican Communion is, I would guess, that a majority of Bishops hold a position on same-sex realtionships different from that of many in TEC, and clearly of something close to a majority of Bishops and Deputies in GC, does that mean that TEC should not act in response to its leaders’ discernment? And if TEC is to be accountable beyond the Anglican Communion, do we wait until there is consensus or a clear majority on an issue? If that had been the norm, we would not have women in orders.

By raising these concerns I am not advocating no accountablity. I am suggesting that our accountability needs to be rooted in real relationships within the Catholic Church. In some ways I feel myself to be more accountable to the Lutheran and Disciples of Christ colleagues with whom I pray the Office than to the Archbishop of Canterbury. I think we need to let God bless us with relationships in which we can be held accountable, missional relationships that can grow in spite of our disagreements. One of the sad realities of the Communion is that people have withdrawn from relationships and the Communion is poorer and weaker without those missional relationships.