Sunday,
August 2, 2009
Transitioning
Towards Two-Track Anglicanism:
The Bishop of North Dakota’s Reflections on the Archbishop of
Canterbury’s Reflections on the Episcopal Church's 2009 General Convention
The General
Convention of The Episcopal Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury are moving
in different directions. How’s that for the understatement of the year?
Case in point: General Convention 2009 Resolution D025 which can be found at http://gc2009.org/ViewLegislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=986&type=Final
states that some “same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships”
include individuals who have been called by God in the past and may be called
by God in the future “to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church.”
In contrast, Archbishop Rowan Williams, in his recently released reflections on
General Convention 2009, “Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future” which
can be found at http://anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2009/7/28/ACNS4641
states:
[A] blessing for a same-sex union cannot
have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole.
And if this is the case, a person living in such a union is in the same case as
a heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage
bond; whatever the human respect and pastoral sensitivity such persons must be
given, their chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church's teaching sanctions,
and thus it is hard to see how they can act in the necessarily representative
role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires
(§ 8).
This all sounds familiar. In fact the Archbishop of Canterbury’s 2009
reflection reminds me a great deal of his 2006 reflection: The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today.
In the 2006 essay many of the same themes are sounded, including the
possibility of a two-track ecclesial arrangement of “constituent” and
“associated” churches in Anglicanism.
Indeed the Anglican Communion Covenant process appears to be headed towards an
outcome where some churches will be “constituent” members of an interdependent communion of churches and
others will become “associate” members of an independent
federation of churches. In this way, in the Archbishop’s words,
“both 'tracks' should be able to pursue what they believe God is calling them
to be as Church, with greater integrity and consistency” (§ 24).
Where does this leave those of us who have been resolute in our commitment to
remain both as dioceses,
clergy and people of The Episcopal Chuch, and covenanted members of the global
Anglican Communion as well? This includes, but is not limited to, those
identified as “Communion Partners.”
The Constitution & Canons of The Episcopal Church are clear. In the
Preamble, we claim for ourselves constituent membership in the “Anglican
Communion, a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and
It has become clear to me in discussions with Episcopalians inside and outside
the Diocese that not everyone has the same appreciation or understanding of the
importance of remaining “in communion with the See of Canterbury.” (A woman at
coffee hour one Sunday remarked: “We always thought Anglicans were nice people,
but we never thought of ourselves as Anglicans.”) I, on the other hand, have
always used the terms “Episcopal” and “Anglican” synonymously. In fact, I was
able to join The Episcopal Church precisely because it is part of the worldwide
Anglican Communion, thereby demonstrating its catholicity as a church of the
redeemed “from every family, language, people, and nation…” (Revelation 5:9),
and not existing in isolation as a small protestant denomination in the
My recent experiences at
But Resolution D025 also acknowledges that “members of The Episcopal Church as
of the Anglican Communion, based on careful study of the Holy Scriptures, and
in light of tradition and reason, are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience disagree
about some of these matters” (emphasis added). Let’s work with this. I wonder
if there is a way forward that honors the consciences of all, one that would
allow some in The Episcopal Church to travel on the track of a covenanted,
interdependent Communion and others the opportunity to seek to serve God on a
more federated, independent track.
For example, the use of the word “church” is imprecise in the Ridley Cambridge
draft of the Anglican Communion Covenant which can be found at http://anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/ridley_cambridge/intro_text.cfm.
(Please remember that Sections 1-3 have already been approved by the Anglican
Consultative Council for adoption by churches. Only Section 4 has been held
back for further work.) When the Covenant states “Each Church affirms” or “Each
Church commits itself,” the meaning of “church” is unclear. Is the Covenant
referring to “church” as a province or a diocese or a congregation? What is to
prevent a diocese or congregation from adopting the Covenant and thereby
remaining a constituent member of Anglicanism in communion with the See of Canterbury?
It might look something like this:
A diocesan convention could adopt the
Covenant. That diocese’s bishop would then be recognized by the Archbishop of
A congregation in a non-Covenant
diocese could adopt the Covenant and request of the diocesan bishop an
“Episcopal Visitor” from among those bishops recognized by the Archbishop as
being “in communion” with the See of Canterbury.
An individual in a non-Covenant
congregation in a non-Covenant diocese could simply have his or her “letter”
moved to or baptism recorded in a Covenanted-congregation.
Or, perhaps the Communion Partners
initiative could become a “Mission Society” or a “Christian Community” as
described in Canon III.14.2(a) as “a society of Christians (in Communion with
the See of Canterbury)…”
Admittedly, in order for such scenarios to succeed would require the good
will and even encouragement from the “federated” majority towards the
“covenanted” minority in The Episcopal Church. However, failure to pursue such
opportunities will most certainly result in more individuals, congregations and
dioceses leaving The Episcopal Church. There are a number of Episcopalians,
myself included, for whom the desire and intent to “Remain Anglican” is
foundational to our understanding of what it means to be “Episcopalian.”
The Rt. Rev. Michael G. Smith
Episcopal Bishop of
August 2, 2009
+Michael Smith