Benjamin Guyer - 20 January 2010 02:20 PM

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts about how the current lawsuits have implications for the self-conception of the Episcopal Church (and/or any of its African-affiliated offshoots) as congregational, rather than hierarchical.

I’ve put off butting into this but as someone from a Presbyterian background I just do not accept the dichotomous juxtaposition of congregationalism and hierarchy. And what disturbs me the most about this is that the discussion of polity seems entirely tactical: on the one hand, the liberal “reform” of Anglican sexual morality is seen in revolutionary terms, but on the other hand, now that the revolutionaries are seizing the establishment, they act exactly as they complained the old establishment acted. Polity is only important now when it is useful in suppressing conservative/traditional counterrevolution, but before the liberals gained control it was something to be ignored when Justice demanded. And as I’m sure I’ve said earlier, Anglicanism’s existence is predicated on polity not being an absolute. I’ve not read Hooker at all, but I have strong a priori objections to using him as a more or less uncriticizable lawgiver, particularly since what that really must mean in practice is despotism on the part of the current (liberal) establishment. I must take as given that my loyalty to ECUSA is not absolute and may be withdrawn is it is intolerably abused.

Charles, I think that you do understand the dynamics of the current crisis in Anglicanism.  However, the old establishment, as you put it, did not act in the authoritarian manner of the liberals now in power.  You may recall that on women’s ordination a conscience clause was accepted by the old liberals for those who could not accept w.o.  The new liberals removed that clause and made it mandatory for all dioceses.  They sent in bishops and others to pressure dioceses like Fort Worth to get with the program.  The liberals now in power are totalitarians who, for the most part, brook no dissent.

Thanks Charles and thanks too for Tony’s subsequent comment.  I believe I want to take off on a new tack before returning to the questions raised.
Charles’ comment:

I’ve put off butting into this but as someone from a Presbyterian background I just do not accept the dichotomous juxtaposition of congregationalism and hierarchy. And what disturbs me the most about this is that the discussion of polity seems entirely tactical: on the one hand, the liberal “reform” of Anglican sexual morality is seen in revolutionary terms, but on the other hand, now that the revolutionaries are seizing the establishment, they act exactly as they complained the old establishment acted. Polity is only important now when it is useful in suppressing conservative/traditional counterrevolution, but before the liberals gained control it was something to be ignored when Justice demanded. And as I’m sure I’ve said earlier, Anglicanism’s existence is predicated on polity not being an absolute. I’ve not read Hooker at all, but I have strong a priori objections to using him as a more or less uncriticizable lawgiver, particularly since what that really must mean in practice is despotism on the part of the current (liberal) establishment. I must take as given that my loyalty to ECUSA is not absolute and may be withdrawn is it is intolerably abused.

I have never been anything else than Anglican.  It is the church into which I was baptised as an Englishman and in which ordained as I continued in the C of E throughout all my life until I heard a call to ordination when Billy Graham was at Earls Court in 1967.  It has never occurred to me really to be anything else and I have never not been part of the larger Anglican Community.  So I neither chose to be an Anglican nor did I choose not to be so.  That does not mean that I have not attended other churches - Baptist, Presbyterian, Vineyard, Roman Catholic and Pentecostal.  In all these places I have been hugely blessed.  I have always seen this as being a part of the ONE Church.  I am a Christian first, NOT part of a denomination, but simply part of the ONE Church.  I should also add that I have always detested the totalitarian cultic aspects of some denominations which have insisted on “their way or the highway” to hell, notwithstanding that I do believe that there are strong doctrinal norms that define what is Christian.  These form me have always been the BCP 1662 and its Ordinal, the Thirty Nine Articles as a confessional norm, and of course the Catholic creeds that are in the BCP.

When I came to the USA in 1973 I was first confronted with the reality of being part of one denomination among many.  It did not seem so bad as we had to contend for the faith in the marketplace.  We no longer were simply privileged and taken for granted as THE Church.  Effort was needed to “contend for the faith” and so to present to Gospel as to win converts to Christ.  Generally the relationship with other churches/denominations was friendly.  Generally such fellowship was both geographical as well as one where I made spiritual choices to be with like minded folk.  What I was confronted with then only to a small degree and in later years hugely was a set of discordant voices claiming the mantle of Anglican. 

I had returned to England 1975-8 to serve a curacy and when I returned to the USA all hell had broken loose with a new prayerbook that was being imposed in a totalitarian manner in spite of promises to the contrary.  There was also the flouting of canon in the first US womens’ ordination and the subsequent caving in of GC to a “fact on the ground.”  After this came huge disintegration and the response seems to me to have been one of progressively imposing a set of hierarchical norms that are increasingly narrowly defined.  Sadly also in my mind, less and less consonant with the Christian Faith as I would recognize it.  When doctrinally defined as above it cannot even be Anglican.

So what have I done.  Rather than become something else qua denomination, I could either have opted out and become ACNA, where most of my friends are or move somewhere else in the Communion and maintain my relationships on both sides of the “divide” in the USA.  I chose the latter and am greatly blessed.

Meanwhile I really am very critical of what the leaders of TEC have made of TEC.  I neither recognize them as Anglican - PB, Bruno, Robinson et al., since they have torn apart the Communion as we knew it with their innovations based upon spurious interpretation and revision and also in the face of complete unity in telling TEC not to do these things.  They have also torn apart TEC as it was and are making it into an ever more intolerant totalitarian entity that neither brooks dissent nor respects the Communion of which it was meant to be a part.  I am still part of this TEC but as an exile.  I still attend a TEC church in the US whenever I am visiting and indeed much missionary support comes from faithful churches and individuals who are still in TEC.  I guess I can never stop being what I was born into, nurtured in and spent my life ministering.  My monumental sadness is that TEC is acting so horribly and this means that I will continue to object strongly and vocally.

Tony I agree:

Charles, I think that you do understand the dynamics of the current crisis in Anglicanism.  However, the old establishment, as you put it, did not act in the authoritarian manner of the liberals now in power.  You may recall that on women’s ordination a conscience clause was accepted by the old liberals for those who could not accept w.o.  The new liberals removed that clause and made it mandatory for all dioceses.  They sent in bishops and others to pressure dioceses like Fort Worth to get with the program.  The liberals now in power are totalitarians who, for the most part, brook no dissent.

In the end there is a tension between congregational and hierarchical, confessional and whatever the alternative is - because creedal to me means confessional.  Meanwhile we are all called to be Christians first, live in charity, find the effective way to witness to Christ in this generation and resist the enemy who continues to prowl and take on false guises.

Think how much we could help the true physical needs of the world, especially Haiti, if we were not consuming ourselves with lawsuits.  Jarndyce anyone?

It is interesting to see the flow of this thread. The common denominator is authority and power. What Dr Radner basically is asking is that all parties would give up power.

Congregational polity has certain views of power, i.e. authority and power resides at the congregational level, while both an Episcopal and a Presbyterian model recognize that there needs to be an authority outside of the congregation.

And so Ben’s two pronged question is very good: What is the relationship of property litigation to church polity, and second, is TEC sending mixed messages itself about its own polity?

Michael,

But at this point we and all the hierarchical churches must resist a precedent being set that we are congregationally organized.

Would you be so kind as to name the other hierarchical churches you are comparing with TEC? It might help me understand better the polity of TEC as you understand it.

I think that the whole issue of property litigation will come to be seen as one of the most fought over but in the end least important issue in the Anglican Civil War.  For a few reasons. 

First, very often, a specific property hampers a church’s ability to grow and be creative.  In my experience I have observed a lot of congregations across the USA and Canada and more often then not, the building is something that is limiting the congregation’s ability to be “all that it could be.”  There are some exceptions to this, of course.  But overall, I think that an Anglican congregation that has had to get over the loss of its building will emerge as a much stronger congregation and better able to adjust to 21st century mission, then a departing congregation that kept its building.

Second, it seems to me that from TEC’s perspective, property litigation is done more to slake liberal anger and vengeance, then to further TEC’s own interests.  I quote from the recent diocesan address of a TEC bishop:

It is expensive and time consuming to maintain empty church buildings when there is no congregation there to oversee those responsibilities. The architecture and real estate market make it difficult to sell church buildings. In the future, closing a congregation will impact all the parishes of the diocese through shared expenses in our diocesan budget.

This is referring to TEC parishes which have closed their doors due to TEC’s “normal” decline and absent the departure of the whole (or substantially all) congregation to another Anglican jurisdiction.  But in dioceses run by angry liberals, there is the felt need to use diocesan resources to front a fake congregation for 1-2 years in order to create the appearance that the congregation did not in fact leave.  Thus, it costs TEC significant resources, in addition to litigation costs, to pursue this litigation strategy.  Further, money spent on TEC’s litigation strategy is being taken from other areas of the budget, the litigation strategy tends to consume TEC’s leadership, and a culture of anger and suspicion has emerged in TEC that prevents any honest discussion of or addressing TEC’s astonishing decline.

Thus I would suggest that often in the church litigation disputes, each side is fighting AGAINST their own long-term self-interests.  Dr. Radner’s suggestion is a very wise one - not only would it greatly assist a hard-hit nation, it would also result in greater health for both the ACNA and TEC.  But I doubt it will happen.  Unfortunately, the battle lines are already drawn, and I fear that the Anglican Civil War will only be over when TEC’s current hierarchy collapses in on itself.

As for the polity issue, I think that there is one huge point missing from the discussion, and one minor point.  Minor point first.  How a church organizes itself ecclesiastically might be different then how it organizes itself legally.  IMHO, the courts should not create special exceptions to property and trust law simply because a church declares that it is “hierarchical”.  A church is free to legally organize itself either congregationally (i.e., the congregation holds the title to the property) or hierarchically (i.e. the hierarchical authority holds title to the property).  Legal title in the Roman Catholic Church is held by the local diocese.  I have no problem with TEC’s assertion that it is a hierarchical church ecclesiastically.  But legally, it chose to organize itself congregationally, and it should deal with that reality.

But the major point is that hierarchical churches are about more than hierarchy as it relates to property ownership.  In fact, property ownership should be a minor issue.  Rather “hierarchy” has to do with conserving the apostolic teaching in a catholic manner.  It means bishops who actively defend catholic and apostolic teaching, order and discipline.  TEC has utterly cast such a catholic, hierarchical vision aside, and instead look on its “hierarchy” much as a Third World dictator would look upon his country as his hierarchy - in other words, giving the ruling junta the unchecked power to do whatever it wants - power without accountability or restraint.  (As an aside, this is where I think the Covenant is so valuable).

I’m wondering, simply from a practical point of view, how Dr. Radner and others would suggest we reconcile what appear to be irreconcilable differences, especially in light of the expressed needs that confront us daily?

Tom raises a good question.  I think that if we could gather some non-angry, creative folks around a table, we could arrive at some very good solutions.  Here are some possibilities:

1. Each side agrees that there is a benefit to avoiding litigation.  This benefits include avoiding losing in appeal; avoiding legal and attorney fees; maintaining a cooperative relationship that could lead to reunification in the future.  Assign a monetary value to these benefits, and begin your negotiations there.  Typically, such negotiations would follow a path similar to what transpired between Christ Church, Overland Park, Kansas and the Diocese of Kansas, when Christ Church “paid off” the diocese to relinquish any legal claim on Christ Church’s property.  The financially strapped Diocese got some badly needed money and Christ Church got its building.

2. Where a parish is split, why not permit some creative arrangements?  If a parish is split 70-30 to leave to join ACNA, why not (a) put the property into a holding company with an agreed upon division of ownership between TEC and the ACNA; (b) let the ACNA congregation call an ACNA priest that is acceptable to the TEC, and then have the local TEC bishop license the ACNA priest to serve in his/her diocese; (c) have both a TEC and an ACNA vestry that work together, and (d) otherwise continue on practically as one parish?

The way it is right now is bad for TEC and bad for the ACNA.  Even if TEC “wins” legally, it still loses, because it costs TEC money to maintain empty buildings, it costs TEC PR when it boots out congregations, and it will lead to a change of people’s giving behavior as they will no longer choose to give financially to a TEC-related body.  It hurts both TEC and the ACNA because of all the bad blood that results.

Personally, I am ambivalent about both TEC and the ACNA.  Under the right conditions, I can remain a part of TEC or join the ACNA.  I fully understand why some people believe they must leave TEC and I fully understand why some people believe they must stay.  But I think we could work together and fully respect and honor all of those reasons.

All that is needed is some creativity, no harassment and threats from TEC’s hierarchy, a dialing down of the anger and vengeance, and a willingness to work with others you disagree with instead of self-righteously walking away.

Well said, James!

James,
Ditto for me too. I sent you a private email also.

<Snark Alert>

“We must not allow schismatics to steal anything.”

That is my cynical side speaking.

All that is needed is some creativity, no harassment and threats from TEC’s hierarchy, a dialing down of the anger and vengeance, and a willingness to work with others you disagree with instead of self-righteously walking away.

My “faith in God” side says, such is possible with God’s grace.

In all seriousness, I am willing to commit to pray for such an end. Might anyone else join me?