Anglican Postmortem

And the nominees are...

The slate of candidates for Presiding Bishop of TEC have been named, and first glance is that we have three white southern men (like me), and one woman. I know a little about two of the men (Parsley & Alexander), and a lot more about the woman. Suffice it to say that even though I think Katherine Jefferts Schori is a great bishop, I don't think that she is at all what TEC needs right now. My guess is that her selection is -- dare I say it -- a token selection.

What TEC needs right now is someone who can lead us away from the centralizing forces of the AMiA/Network/Global South folks, and toward a new understanding of what it means to be a contextualized, autonomous church. This person should help us to re-focus that our mission is toward the poor, and in striving for peace, and to demand that we stop playing the power struggle games that the so-called "orthodox," keep trying to force us in to. The new PB should have an understanding of what it means to lead a counter-cultural, historically focused church that was born out of disestablishment, and that must shine light on the steady erosion of the Establishment Clause in current American politics.

Church property held in trust for diocese

Okay, I know I'll get skewered over this, but "Orthodox Anglican" blogger David Justice was the only one to give this story real coverage, and he actually did a pretty good job with it.

St James the Less loses on appeal to PA Supreme Court

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org

PHILADELPHIA, PA (1/1/2006)--The Anglo-Catholic parish of St. James the Less, located in north Philadelphia, lost its appeal in a property case opinion by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court this week.

The Orphans Court and the Commonwealth Court had ruled for the Diocese of Pennsylvania, concluding that the property of St. James the Less was owned by the diocese. The Pa Supreme Court reversed the holding of the Commonwealth Court that the Diocese owned the property. The Pa Supreme Court said that St. James owned the property but held it in trust for the Diocese.

A PDF version of the decision of the majority can be read here. The one dissenting opinion can be read here.

I don't know much about law, but it's fascinating to me that the precedent is established by the polity of the larger church. In the case of ECUSA, the courts look to the Dennis Canon as sufficient statement by the national church that:

"All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for this [National Episcopal Church] and Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission or Congregation is located. The existence of this trust, however, shall in no way limit the power authority of the Parish, Mission, or Congregation otherwise existing over such property as long as the particular Parish, Mission or Congregation remains part of, and subject to, this Church and its constitution and Canons."

I will be interested to see if any claims are made on a higher authority by members of the Anglican Communion. This appears to set-up a chain of control, and the Dennis Canon sets the top level of entitlement to ECUSA, but without defining ourselves out of what is rather quickly becoming a worldwide Anglican Church, couldn't that authority be -- at some point in the future -- trumped by the higher authority of, say the Anglican Consultative Council, or Canterbury, or Nigeria, or where ever the centralized power base is.

In the RC Church, dioceses and archdioceses excercise control over diocesan properties all of the time. I'm not sure, but will find out, what happens if an RC diocese (or similar entity) were to alienate itself from Rome, who then holds the trust?

Of course, Henry VIII forsaw such problems, and claimed all authority over such properties by the crown. Now don't get me wrong -- I'm definitely not endorsing establishment. I do think that Henry was aware of this same problem though -- although we all know that such disputes would have been handled far differently in Tudor times -- but we should embrace his vision that international claim on church property did present a profound problem.

much peace,
s

in communion, not a communion

"Apart from highlighting the Korean peninsula’s reunification issue, Griswold and his wife, Phoebe, and his delegation made of four senior staff members from the Episcopal Church Center spent time with different ministries of the Korean Anglican Church.Exchanges for theological education, peace and justice ministries, Anglican companion relationships, and provincial communication strategy were among the topics addressed in conversations shared by local church leaders and Margaret Larom, the Episcopal Church's director of Anglican and Global Relations, and the Rev. Canon Brian Grieves, the Episcopal Church's director of peace and justice ministries, ENS reported."

Christian News - The Christian Post | Korean Anglicans Appreciate Collaboration with U.S. Episcopal Church on Reunification

So, I'm no big fan of the current PB, but I'm amazed by what his trip to Korea means at this time. While the primates of the Global South (including many from Asia) are meeting in Egypt, the primate they most despise is doing the work of communion. It is about relationship not structure. The so-called "orthodox" Anglicans are trying to manage relationships -- who can be in communion with whom -- while, apparently, ECUSA is nurturing a relationship.

In the Tipping Point analogy, Griswold is more of a connector than a maven. By virtue of his position he's a small world guy, but the meeting in Korea must be orchestrated by someone who is a maven -- which is a rarity for ECUSA.

More, more, much more of this is needed. This is the ECUSA living out its faith in the world. Stop worrying about the AC and who will manage relationships, and get out there and start planting new relationships and nurturing old ones. The so-called "orthodox" can call themselves "The Network," but calling yourself a network does not give you powers to manage relationships within that network. A node to node connection is managed by those nodes, not an omnipotent network manager.

What Griswold (et al) is doing is expanding the understanding of ECUSA's nodal relationships. A large part of the trip (as reported by ENS) was to enrich relationships with the Korean Anglican Church, but it is the prayers offered at the DMZ, and the offer to speak boldly to the US government that enhances the communal relationship. These are real-world issues for all Koreans, and ECUSA is providing resources for the Anglican Church in Korea to make peace, do justice, and to spread the Gospel throughout the peninsula.

Sexuality was mentioned, and I'm sure that this is an issue of importance to the Koreans, but nurturing the relationship appears -- from all press accounts, not only ENS -- to be the crux of the visit.

With the PB as a representative of the ECUSA, it is his responsibility to fulfill her mission:

"The mission of the Church is to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ."

The "to each other in Christ" is the communion stuff -- and you can't have the unity to each other in Christ without the unity to God, so it's essentially one in the same. Building unity with one another as individuals, and as churches is building unity to (and in) Christ -- the Second Person of the Triune God. My favorite reminder of this is the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25.

So, an ultimate responsibility for the PB is to bring ECUSA into communion with other churches, not to condone a litmus test (if you will) for belonging. The plan of the so-called "orthodox" is just that. Now, I know that they say the only tests for them are scripture and the ancient creeds of the Church, but that is not the case. They deny the living proof of the Holy Spirit (attested in scripture and the creeds), because they deny that the fruits of the Spirit are present where they have been discerned by her church. (The ministry of Gene Robinson, the relationships of committed loving people, the nurturing of children by two parents of the same sex, to name a few.) It is my contention that in so doing, they blaspheme the Holy Spirit, but that's just me. (Please pardon that brief ranting foray into the "wedge issues.")

So, ECUSA is currently in communion with many churches, including the Old Catholic Churches of Europe, the Philippine Independent Church, the Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar (India), the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), and those members of the AC who have not abandoned that commitment -- Korea being one of those.

The AC is a collection of churches who are in communion with the See of Canterbury, and somehow that grew to imply that they were in turn in communion with one another. Now, if we are in communion with ELCA and with the Old Catholic Churches of Europe, does that imply that ELCA and the Old Catholics are in communion with one another? Of course not. So, it seems to me that it is the job of the member churches of the AC to nurture all relationships, not just to assume because another member church is also in communion with Canterbury that the bonds of affection exist between all.

I know that I don't need to go into the "relationships require work" thing, but... Let's just say that the fruit of that work is obvious. If there are profound rifts between member churches of the AC now, what makes anyone think that they relationships were healthy to begin with.

peace for now.