I’d like to remind readers of this thread about Covenant’s comment policy. Let’s stop speculating about why people have written what they have, or not written something else.

Ian:  Yes, I wrote hastily and late at night and after a long day;  as do most of us who work for a living, and as I do now.  Sorry if, as a result, you had trouble understanding what I said (which you apparently did).

With regard to the main point of this thread, as I hinted by the use of the vague term “illegitimate”, I belive that “in terms of the Constitution of the TEC, [some of] the decisions made by the HoB and General Convention” are NOT lawful.  We have, for instance, a canon that describes marriage as between a man and a woman;  this too is asserted in our Prayer Book.  The resolutions passed by GC and now acted upon explicitly by various dioceses, citing GC resolutions as their authority (e.g. the Diocese of Mass., contradict these canons.  Likewise, canons regulating disciplinary actions vis a vis certain bishops like Scriven and even Duncan were NOT followed by the HoB in their decisions on these matters. Hence, their actions were “unlawful”. I am not sure what you mean by “objectively” here, but I have been involved in plenty of fairly detailed and, I believe, fair arguments explaining these claims on the basis of an examination of our canons and their meaning.  But since the TEC has no supreme tribunal to arbitrate such claims, I think it also air to say that “objectivity” is in dispute at this stage. 

What any of this has to do with my beliefs that the majority of TEC’s bishops are “not in apostolic succession” I don’t know.  I simply said they should resign because they are disloyal to our Constitution and Canons. Bishops in valid succession can be bad bishops, after all, and bad bishops would do well either to become better ones or take early retirement.  But I do not kid myself that any of them will.

I am puzzled by the rest of your concerns—e.g. the notion that because Scripture is variously interpreted it is therefore logically not a “fixed point” for a church’s tradition— but not particularly exercised.  I sense you were looking for responses I did not provide.  C’est la vie.  You asked for what “people thought”, and I provided one person’s (since that’s what I am) answers.  Perhaps other “people” will care to answer.  Perhaps not. Then, instead of “people”, you will be stuck with just a “person”.  While I believe my answers provide some accurate articulation of certain historical norms within Anglicanism—I study this for a living, one that, however, keeps me from the blogs until late at night—I am aware that my views are not shared by all. I know that must be surprising to you;  at least you seem surprised that I might admit this fact.  But that is all I meant by offering a “personal perspective” that also tried to describe common standards.  I’m not the Pope (you will be glad to learn;  and on this at least you and I can have some shared clarity).

I am curious as to a few things that have come up in thinking about the issues being discussed here.

First, the PB seems to be making assertions presupposing a juridical and autonomous authority without clear precedent in practice. Are there particular canons that have been passed that have reordered the polity of TEC? What particular canon, or set of canons is the presiding bishop relying upon to make her assertions? If not canons, is there precedent for decision-making that would support her assertions?

Why is it that the PB believes, all of a sudden, that Bishop MacDonald should not continue his episcopacy under her supervision? Did she explicitly outline a timeline for when his ministry would move from “temporary,” and thus acceptable to remaining a bishop of TEC, to ‘not temporary’ and thus unacceptable? If not, what justification does she have for her assertion except her arbitrary will in the matter? Decision-making in such a fashion is not only illegitimate, it is without virtue, personal and ecclesial.

I find this statement curious: “Such temporary duty requires the full and informed consent of the respective ecclesiastical authorities.” To which ecclesiastical authorities is she referring? Who has the authority in this matter, what procedures are in place for determining such an issue, and did the PB communicate at the outset to Bishop MacDonald that his ‘status’ as temporary or permanent would be continually reviewed, that he would be continually consulted and that there would be a particular procedure in place for determining these things? If these things have been in place, could someone please direct me to them, particularly since these things should be public since they affect the people of the ACoC and of TEC. If these things are in place, then where has it been recorded that ‘the appropriate ecclesiastical authorities’ have been consulted and have reached a consensus on Bishop MacDonald’s status? Once again, without answer to these questions, I can only assume the PB decision is made arbitrarily according to her reasoning and will. 

Again, another interesting statement: “The ministry of Mark McDonald is an example, but as his position becomes permanent, his loyalty will have to be to the Anglican Church of Canada, rather than The Episcopal Church, and a recognition of his renunciation of orders in this Church will be necessary.” What specifically, does it mean to become “permanent” in the Anglican Church of Canada? Has she consulted with Fred Hiltz on this matter? I would highly doubt this is the case and have heard no word of it.

In any case, without further clarification and either or both precedent and canonical justification, it would in fact seem the PB is attempting to make decisions by arbitrarily asserting her will thus changing the order of TEC.

Ian in response to your statement: “His dismissal of ‘emerging church order’ reads strangely against his later remark that ‘In Christian terms, then, tradition does indeed evolve, just as it does generally’. His later argument about the role of Anglican bishops in the last two centuries is surely a prime case for an ‘emerging’ church order along with a reference to divergent views on the ‘doctrinal and institutional character of apostolicity.”

Yes of course Church order changes. But legitimacy in changing that order is dependent both upon the means and ends for how decisions are made in light of God’s will for his Church. Discerning God’s will for the Church, requires ecclesial and thus individual virtues of patience, endurance, mutual forbearance, and perseverance in making decisions that have the consent of the whole Church and further, that consider the well being and building up of the whole Church of which one is a part (TEC the ACoC and the wider Anglican Communion in this case). Arbitrary decision-making does not share in any of these virtues. It is self serving and can be wielded manipulatively using whatever means are necessary toward achieving whatever ends are desired. Church order does change, but it changes within the context of mutually discerned limits and for the good of the whole Church, not to gain more autonomous power. I have no doubt Dr. Radner believes Church order has legitimately changed in the past; however, and I believe this was part of the point he was making in his post, that does not mean that every change has been legitimate, nor that every change has been faithful in proceeding in a virtuous manner that witnesses to our discernment of God’s will. The evidence to date does not suggest that any change in order undertaken by the PB in the matter here has been legitimately undertaken.

Ephraim, On reflection I was a bit terse and I apologize if I gave offence. As we all share the human trait of work, even those nominally retired, I understand being weary at the end of the day. I prefer to address issues early in the morning.

I remain perplexed at the frequent lack of definitional clarity in many postings, hence the original query. Evangelicals obviously place a high value on Scripture, as we both do, but there are many issues, as the 39 Articles point out, where it is simply silent, and that was the background of my observations about ‘emerging’ matters.

As far as the polity of the TEC is concerned, a subject on which as a foreigner I rarely comment for obvious reasons, I can’t avoid seeing constant references to the PB exceeding her constitutional and canonical authority and acting, it seems, illegally. If that is so, it seems long overdue for someone to challenge alleged wrong behaviour through legal means. I am not a legalist, and deeply deplore using scarce resources in the civil courts. However, our Church is grounded in law as our history and everyday structures affirm.

I am genuinely puzzled, like others, about the pattern of revoking orders that seems to be a major tool of both the TEC and the Canadian Church. I can understanding revoking or denying a licence but in the absence of legal due process, I can’t get to grips with revocation of orders.

I am not sure if there is any form of Appellate Tribunal in the American Church. In Australia the appellate model seems to manage divergent views and values while maintaining at least a visual unity in fairly characteristic Anglican diversity. It usefully prevents the disorder of unruly prelates.

Again, my apologies for any offence.

Ian Welch, Canberra

Ian:  no need to apologize;  I wasn’t offended.  Impatient, maybe.

Your point about an Appellate Tribunal is well taken;  as I pointed out, it doesn’t exist here. Indeed, it doesn’t exist in most Anglican churches, as far as I know, although some have other means of clearly indicating “where the buck stops”. Some have wanted such a thing—just as the original Lambeth Conference wanted one for the Communion, at least in dealing with certain matters.  And given the analgous civil experience of a Supreme Court, and the general civil analogy’s positive profile in the minds of those who first set up the Episcopal Church, it is perhaps odd that the idea within the Episcopal Church never found much traction. But there you are.

There are, to be sure, processes of disciplinary evaluation and sanction, e.g. presentments for bishops,  but they work only in individual cases and cannot determine general policies or their interpretation.  On a practical level, these processes have been very rarely pursued, and very rarely carried through with any efficiency and, more recently, credibility.  Hence, they are pretty much a dead issue, a case where the law no longer has authority simply because it is not applied or trusted. 

What irks me most deeply on this score, is the fact that TEC (and to a lesser extent ACoC) have now been going through their most extended and destructive period of inner disarray in their history—what I would rather call, to reapply your phrase, “emerging disorder”—yet those in positions of relative power are doing little to reestablish ordered relationships, but are rather forging ahead with policies and canonical reconstructions that are only furthering this disarray.  These are matters, not of theological conviction, but of quantitative demonstration:  membership losses of a staggering kind, financial decomposition, public scandal (can anyone really claim that over $30 million in lawsuits amongst Christians is anything but horrendous publicity by anybody’s standard, and immoral by most people’s?). I don’t get it.  Yet, by golly, the PB is going “clean up” her books and get her canonical dagger into the heart of the Bob-Duncan-machine and all propagandists for the Right Wing Conspiracy, by what?  By insisting that Mark MacDonald, one of the most respected bishops in the HoB, who has given his entire ministry selflessly and sacrificially [no one has any idea of what this bishop and his family have given up and continue to give up in their service of Christ and his people!] to the least served and honored regions and peoples of our church, whose love for Jesus is open and guileless, must “renounce his orders” because he has “abandoned the communion of this church” through his work among aboriginal brethren in the North?  And this, this will provide a consistent foundation upon which to carry on with integrity TEC’s ministry of inclusion? A small matter, maybe, touching only on the public image of a good man nobody really thinks has done something wrong, so what difference does it make, it’s only paper work.  But in the process, every word and concept is debased:  “renunciation”, “orders”, “communion”, “church”—let’s add “mission”, “loyalty”, “friendship”, “collegiality”, and, of course, in all of this, “Anglican”. Sigh.

I have made a point of staying off the blogs these past months, and have generally been pretty disciplined about it.  But I hate to see good people and good Christians like Mark MacDonald forcibly caught up in the dynamics by which church leaders turn their resentments into ecclesial policy, and in the process, to use the phrase, fray and break the “bonds of affection” that ought to be our mutual support.