Jim, if I can offer my view. One thing Dan and I share is a kind of desire for precision when it comes to parsing texts -- biblical or canonical. [His own words (and mine) are not always so carefully parsed by others.] I think if you review what he wrote in response to my question (which is the same as yours) he pointed to the fact that the Constitution and Canons do not actually verbally address the question in so many words, or indeed in any words at all. They are silent on the subject of a diocese becoming independent, on its own or with the approval of GC (apart from missionary dioceses). I take that silence as persuasive -- in a similar fashion to the silence of the US Constitution on the same subject. The formation of a Union (in church or state) was so much a part of the mindset of the framers that no provision for disunion was even conceived, much less born.

However, arguments from silence are notoriously fraught; and I think the important thing in Dan's response is that after acknowledging the silence that births this ambiguity, he says very clearly that 1) he thinks it a very bad idea, and 2) cannot conceive of doing it.

So I think what you are seeing is the willingness to be very open about his thought processes -- and the honesty to say that what appears to be ambiguous (in the text itself, or rather not in the text itself) is capable of more than one interpretation.

If I've misrepresented Dan, I invite him to correct me!

Thank you, Tobias. This is helpful. As some of our bishops seem to believe in diocesan autonomy, and others seem to be involved in a cooperative effort to put the House of Deputies in what they deem to be its proper subordinate place, I think it is important for folks in Dan's position to spell out what powers they think they are entitled to wield. As Dan has written dismissively of our democratic polity, I am particularly curious about his views on the authority of General Convention.

Jim,

I think the house of bishops should include as wide a set of views as possible. It is possible that a member could honestly doubt the indissoluble nature of the church and still serve honorably.

Fr. Martins has not said he thinks it is acceptable that a diocese's leadership attempt to leave with its asserts and people. He has expressed doubt, uncertainty. He has also however been clear that he will not be such a leader.

If I were on a standing committee (God forbid!) I would not be thrilled to vote yes on his confirmation, but I would do it. The day we insist that only those in complete agreement with the progressive side can be bishops, we should change our name to GafCon.

FWIW
jimB

Jim Beyer

I have the same question you do, Jim--so I was waiting to see if anyone would chime in. I always appreciate Tobias' perspective on these matters, although I am still quite uneasy about Fr. Martins' positions on a number of things.

In addition to the questions Jim has raised, I also want to know how Fr. Martins plans to provide pastoral care for those in his diocese who would be open to calling an LGBT priest (including one with a partner) or who want to offer SSBs. The diocese itself may be conservative, but that doesn't mean that there are no progressives living there.

If we expect progressive bishops to care for their conservative clergy and members, I think we should expect the same from conservative bishops.

Along with Tobias I would note that the C&C are silent on secession. Some could argue that such silence represents permission to secede, but that would be belied by the unqualified accession of their original joining.

I am with Tobias in thinking this is the "conversation" point which Dan acknowledges since it is the point that the schismatics are exploiting, though to little success.

The weight of our practice as a church, however, has been to see that unqualified accession as meaning unqualified accession. From William White reminding states that they were bound by the acts of GC even if they did not send deputies, through the long commentary of White and Dyckman, there is not a shred of support that the silence of the C&C permits secession.

As the ++ABC has found to his shame, playing intellectual games with ideas (vis homosexuality) and then repudiating the ideas because after all there were only an "academic exercise" makes for deep bad feelings. I would urge Dan+, even as I support his election, to skip the intellectual frippery and agree with the California judge who pointed asked schismatic parishes, "What part of 'unqualified' didn't you understand?"

Paige, you can be assured that there are liberals within the diocese of Springfield. This diocese is home to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, which is where I did my graduate work. The chaplain there is an exceptional priest who has been able to work successfully with some very conservative bishops. I am following these events much concern for his future, and for the future of the ministry there.

The other piece to this is the recent discussion at Executive Council regarding governance issues. While I believe that dioceses are formed and sustained by TEC through action of General Convention, I think we will need to look very seriously at the structure of the church and whether current technology and communication as well as a dearth of resources necessitate a re-thinking of the whole diocesan/national structure.

It was easy to speak of the diocese as the primary missional unit of the church when the "diocese" was a bishop on horseback riding between far-flung missions and any centralized authority was thousands of miles away. The proliferation of "corporate sole" structures in the west especially speaks to that. Now, however, there is instantaneous communication, a highly transient culture, and institutional disintegration everywhere. How do we who have inherited a post-World War II structure transition into a post-Christian, post-institutional structure?

General Convention is a prime example. I don't think we as a church can afford to support one of the largest "political" conventions in the United States in its current form for a denomination with less than 2 million members. The Presiding Bishop herself has advanced the concept of subsidiarity--where organizations higher up the hierarchy do only those things that cannot be accomplished at a lower level. Assuming the diocese does much of the work formerly delegated to Episcopal Church Center, where does that fit in with diocesan autonomy?

How all of this fits in with the whole discussion of diocesan autonomy is a subject worthy of study. For now, it often seems like we're making this up as we go along, the Constitution and Canons notwithstanding...

I agree with Tom that the structure of the church is ripe for rethinking. I lament the fact that those who advance this argument seem to train their sites immediately on General Convention. This is hardly the church's largest expenditure, or, to my mind, the most difficult one of justify. It is also the area in which the law of unintended consequences could have the most devastating effects.

Even as we wander a bit far from the topic of the post (!) let me note just how much our polity has changed over the last two centuries and a bit. Bishops only gained full veto power in GC in the early years of the last century, and half-way through the role of the PB changed dramatically, and then further a few decades later. Executive Council succeeded the "National Council" and '815' has waxed and waned in its focus and work. People focus on GC because it is the supreme legislative body, but there is much else in our over-all polity that bears close scrutiny -- and an awareness that a tweak here may have chaotic consequences elsewhere. (With a tip of the hat to the late Benoit Mandelbrot...)

We mayhaps need a separate discussion on General Convention. It actually pays for itself through the assessment and Diocesan expenditures for Deputies. To somehow "reduce" it will not produce money for other things, indeed it is more likely to leave people feeling disenfranchised.

GC is about processing, together, the life of the Church and its absolute value is in bringing together deciders/stakeholders to do this chewing.

I would be loath to see it reduced.

Not wanting to flog General Convention more than necessary, but I'm wondering about the conflation of deciders with stakeholders and also the assertion that GC "pays for itself through the assessment and Diocesan expenditures for Deputies." So, one counts the assessment as a "paying for itself"? Isn't that sort of like saying that Congress "pays for itself" because of the taxes that we pay?

I'm also not sure that the average person-in-the-pew (the real stakeholders) much knows or cares what happens at General Convention. Having been there for a week in 2009, I'll grant you that it is a great event and wonderful for those who go, I'm just not sure that we get the best bang for our assessment buck in its current form.

Be that as it may, I'd be interested (likely under a different post) to hear what things one might cut from the TEC budget ahead of cutting General Convention expenses. What sort of structural changes might best be done?

I will try to pull some numbers together, Tom. I think one can ask a number of questions, though, such as, do we have too many dioceses, are the provinces the right size and are the provincial structures used well? what is the right amount of staffing for 815?
Does 815 have to be located at 815? Are expenditures in governance committed disproportionately to one order of ministry?

I also want to push back a bit on using whether the notional average person in the pew cares about General Convention as a useful measurement of its worth. The "average person" is not set on fire by governance, regardless of the system--this tells us nothing about the importance of governance.

One last thing, not directed at you, many of the people I've heard complain about General Convention haven't so much as sat through a school board meeting, yet they speak as though they are experts on the way legislative assemblies should work. This bugs me. It's like having someone who has been to church a few times explaining to you how to reorganize the liturgy.

I think that we do have too many dioceses and, unfortunately, that the only way those boundaries will ever change is as small dioceses becomes smaller and face financial crises. In other words, I simply don't believe that people will embrace a forward-thinking process for this area of church life. I would love to be proved wrong on this point.

I think that "815" doesn't have to be - and shouldn't be - located at 815 Second Avenue in Manhattan. Much good will could be generated by locating these offices in the Midwest (specifically, Chicago or St. Louis). At the very least, it would be practical in terms of time zones in order to be more fair to people calling or emailing from the West Coast.

I think that people in the pews of the Episcopal Church, who love it and want it to flourish, have a right to express opinions about the structure of General Convention. Similarly, I think that the President of the House of Deputies has a right to express her opinion about the Bishop Bennison debacle. I'm embarrassed when folks say that you have to be a certain kind of person with special credentials in order to speak to these matters.

Back on the topic you began this thread posting, I think that Fr. Dan fits within the scope of the "broad tent;" has made it clear that a bishop he has no intention of going somewhere else and in any event would not lead a diocese to that putative destination but would resign were he that dissatisfied.

That seems to me to be enough to answer your objection / question. His doubt about the constitutional issue is honestly expressed and within the scope of the big tent. In fact it may lead us to do some serious constitutional thinking and that is a good thing and a reason to have a bishop like he will be.

FWIW
jim beyer

JimB, I have some concern that accepting your argument would impel me to believe that what Mark Lawrence is up to in South Carolina also falls under "the big tent." Am I missing something?

Neil, I don't care who has an opinion about the shabbiness of my kitchen. But I'd like the people who come to remodel it to be able to identify the load bearing walls.

Jim, I hear what you're saying. I just want to make sure that we understand that the kitchen (i.e., General Convention) belongs to the whole church and not merely to those who most like to cook there. So the remodeling has to take that fact into account. It's part of our spiritual home, and the folks who live in that home should be welcome to talk about it.