Whoa!

Don't you think ++Rowan ought to wait for an affirmative response to this whole vicar/pastoral meddling group idea from some organization that,at least, claims to speak for TEC before he starts soliciting a Cardinal(oops, bishop) to run the dog-and-pony show?

+KJS was wrong to let the Primates in the door, but somebody needs to listen to Nancy Reagan:"just say NO."

Yeah, this seems very quick. I still can't quite figure out that the big hurry is. Anyway, can someone help me understand in what ways General Convention holds primatial authority? Canon I.2.4(a) makes it clear that our PB is also Primate, so how goes GC have primatial authority?

I am far from expert here, but I'd say that this passage shoudl be read with the emphasis on "authorized by General Convention":

Sec. 4 (a) The Presiding Bishop shall be the Chief Pastor and Primate of the Church, and shall: (1) Be charged with responsibility for leadership in initiating

and developing the policy and strategy in the Church and speaking for the Church as to the policies, strategies and programs authorized by the General Convention,

and that this passage, I.2.4.c seems to lay out ground rules for the delegation of authority, that would seem to suggest the PB can't unilaterally delegate the authority that Primates would like her to delegate: (c) The Presiding Bishop shall perform such other functions as shall be prescribed in these Canons; and, to be enabled better to perform such duties and responsibilities, the Presiding Bishop may appoint, to positions established by the Executive Council of General Convention, officers, responsible to the Presiding Bishop, who may delegate such authority as shall seem appropriate.

OK, well, it all seems very confusing, but I read that as allowing +KJS to delegate normal functions to others. I guess the rub is whether the Primatial Vicar is a vicar to the PB or this extra-provincial Pastoral Council. If the latter, then clearly General Convention needs to weigh in.

Anyway, I've posted some thoughts (of a ranty nature) on Rowan's letter over on my little blog.

More here:
http://inclusivechurch.blogspot.com/2007/03/on-rowans-pastoral-letter.html

Sigh. I'll be eager when this whole topic is a distant memory.

SG+

The Archbishop lost me at this point:

"A clear response on these questions is also needed in the near future: we cannot wait for another General Convention for further clarification. A readiness by the leadership of The Episcopal Church to live by that same formal standard of teaching on these matters which applies elsewhere in the Communion is perhaps the first and most important step in the way forward."

At least, it seems, he and his staff are paying attention to the rather serious dialogue they and others have occasioned in this Province since Tanzania.

But this so-called standard - which now suddenly "applies elsewhere," though perhaps not everywhere "in the Communion" - was not adopted, to the best of my knowledge, by the Episcopal Church. (I would be grateful for clarification from anyone on that.)

I wonder, in fact, whether it was ever adopted by Synod in the Church of England and thus "applies" there. I certainly wonder whether it was ever adopted by Synods of the Anglican Churches of Canada, South Africa or New Zealand - and thus "applies" there.

How could the entire Episcopal Church "live by that same formal standard of teaching" if General Convention did not formally adopt it and could only next consider the idea - no one hold their breath please - in 2009?

More deadlines, more interventions from abroad without ending other interventions from abroad. Enough.

More well-intended nonsense:

"...interventions in the jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church will be able to cease once there is sufficient provision within The Episcopal Church for the adequate pastoral care of such congregations."

Such interventions must cease immediately. The Archbishop is being played, or handled, or something. No one is making "such congregations" or dioceses do, say or believe anything against their collective consciences. They just seem to want foreign intervention in this Province so they can force everyone else to go against their own consciences as regards Gospel-based inclusion.

Seems that this is merely an excellent way for the foreign intrustion we all loved so much at the last GenCon to become a regular feature. Can you imagine? Shall each and every action be subject to the opinions of self-arrogated authorities from other Provinces?

I agree with what some lawyers are telling me: this Primatial Vicar business puts TEC in receivership.

Why will none of our leaders put an end to this nonsense? It doesn't take an act of Executive Council or the House of Bishops simply to proclaim that this cannot happen, even if we wanted it to happen.

Didn't the Executive Council write just yesterday that "the requests made by the Primates, directed to the House of Bishops and the Presiding Bishop, raise important and unresolved questions about the polity of the Episcopal Church and its ecclesiology. We have authorized the appointment of a work group to consider the role, responsibilities and potential response of the Executive Council to the issues raised by the Primates. The work group will make a report and recommendations at the June 2007 meeting of the Council."

I would think that the legal members of the church's executive council would know whether or not the Presiding Bishop possesses canonical authority to establish a Primatial Vicar and/or Pastoral Council. My inference is that they would not have formed a working group to explore the Primates' "key recommendations" if the council did not believe they had a voice in the process.

ChristopherDC seems accurate when he posits that the provinces of Wales, Scotland, Canada and elsewhere have not canonically adopted Lambeth 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10. The Episcopal Church, IMHO, has not adopted a non-binding resolution as it standard teaching on matters of human sexuality. If we have, the Presiding Bishop and her staff had better publicly inform a great number of lay and ordained leaders in our church that they are non-compliant with the Anglican Communion's rubrics.

First of all I hope that the leadership of TEC has the integrity not to buckle under such heavy (but inappropriate) pressure.

I may easily be wrong, but it seems to me that the PB functions more as (what would be called in the non-profit world) an Executive Director and that policy rests with the General Council (or between meetings with the Executive Council). Is that a correct reading??

The quote above ("the Presiding Bishop may appoint, to positions established by the Executive Council of General Convention,") seems to clearly give the Executive Council the authority for creating bodies to whom the PB may delegate power. Am I reading this correctly?

All that aside, I will be devastated if these demands are acceded to.

The canonical definition of our Presiding Bishop's role is just vague enough to be susceptible of various interpretations, especially in that the term "Primate" is not defined. The Archbishop of Canterbury seems intent on pressuring us to act as though our primate has the sort of primatial powers seen elsewhere in the communion, thus setting a precedent for future interpretation of our constitution and canons.

I would argue that the simple fact of naming our presiding bishop "primate" in the Canons does not confer any special rights, but simply designates the PB as the church officer who interacts with our communion partners at the primatial level. The canonical governance responsibilities of the PB are those of presiding over the HOB and joint GC sessions when those bodies meet, and being responsible "for leadership in initiating and developing the policy and strategy in the church" (Canon I.2.4(a)(1)). Appointment powers are limited to positions defined by canon or established by the Executive Council, and in either case must be directly responsible to the PB.

Most people would agree that such an executive position carries with it the inherent authority to delegate power to assistants who are also directly accountable to the PB; these are not officers of the church but rather members of the PB's staff.

Here is the rub: in the plan descibed in the Primate's Communique, the Primatial Vicar is neither appointed by, nor responsible to, the PB. The PV would be responsible only to Pastoral Council, and the Council's role is "to act on behalf of the Primates."

The idea of allowing certain of the PB's responsibilities to be assumed by a officer who is responsible neither to the PB nor to the General Convention is quite extraordinary. It could only be legitimately done, in my view, by a canonical revision.

If the Executive Council is not willing to assert General Convention's prerogitives in this matter, however, we might find the plan being adopted through an "executive order" type maneuver, rationalized as coming under the undefined "primatial" powers of the PB. Should that happen, it will be very hard to get the toothpaste back in the tube.

I agree with Doug - We could not be at a more dangerous point. Either TEC will resist the pressure from the AC and remain the democratic institution it was originally create to be - or it will morph along with the AC into a structure controlled from the top down. The ABC is actually tempting the Bishops and the PB to take more power to themselves. It is a hard thing to resist. Let us pray that they have the strength needed to do so. Because once the power is consolidated in the Bishops and the PB - and remember we tend to give power over to others in a crisis that we would not give over to them otherwise - it is very very hard to get it back. If ever. This is the moment we are in. A crisis has been created in order to realign the AC, but our response must NOT be to undo ourselves, as well. (Think WMDs, think how a crisis was used to transform the executive branch of the government, think how congress went along to try respond to the crisis - think how hard it has been to wrest control back to the people - think hard.) And pray hard too!

C.B.