What does it mean that TEC is suspended now?

TEC cannot for at least three years participate in ecumenical work within the Anglican Communion or participate in some other decision-making committees. Perhaps someone else will have more details than that. TEC has not been removed from the Anglican Communion and most likely will not be, especially since in my opinion the Church of England will eventually follow suit on issues concerning same-sex companionship (in the romantic sense) or otherwise come to similar conclusions.

Esdra said:

Hey.

I've stumbled across this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...episcopal-church-for-3-years-from-committees/
a few days ago and wanted to ask the community something:
What does it mean for tec now that they are suspended? Will they be thrown out of the community now?

Esdra

Click to expand...

Apparently, it means nothing.

It is not being enforced, the leadership has said it won't do anything to that end, and spokesmen for the American church have openly described it as of little consequence anyway.

The Primates made a statement, but they do not have the ecclesiastical authority to enforce it (the Anglican Communion is made up of autonomous churches – it's not absolute authority like in the Roman Catholic Church). The only Anglican body with a constitution is the Anglican Consultative Council, and their position was to focus upon walking together. Regardless, the next most likely chair of the AAC – Bp. Ian Douglas, who is part of TEC – decided not to pursue the position in honor of the Primates' statements.

Esdra said:

Thank you for your answers.

Especially interesting for me is that all Episcopal/ Anglican churches are autonomous. Comparable to the eastern orthodox churches I suppose? I didn't know that.
So the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't have a higher role.

Click to expand...

Nope. Archbishop of Canterbury is simply the first among equals.

Esdra said:

Thank you for your answers.

Especially interesting for me is that all Episcopal/ Anglican churches are autonomous. Comparable to the eastern orthodox churches I suppose? I didn't know that.
So the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't have a higher role.

Click to expand...

The idea of autonomy of the national churches, i.e. that they should not be ruled by overseas bishops was one of the most important principles of the English Reformation. The thinking, especially in the very early going when the English Church separated but continued to have mass in Latin and, at least for a brief time, be essentially the same as before they separated from Pope except that they had in fact separated, the *first* principle of the English Reformation. The idea was that the Bishop of Rome was sort of the ceremonial top Christian in the Church on earth, but that his power only extended over his diocese, or his province (Maybe the Italian church or whatever), and that the English church decided English matters, as Celtic Christians did before St. Augustine of Canterbury came to England in the 6th century to "convert the natives" (Which, to be fair, he in large measure did do- the Christians who existed there prior were a minority group, but one he was quite surprised to find existed when he got there. Eventually, the Celtic Christian Church more or less merged with the descendents of St. Augustine's group, producing a Roman Catholic affiliated Church of England, which later broke from Rome "again" during the Reformation).

Of course, the church further Protestantised under Henry and then a ton under Edward IV, Bloody Mary took the crown and reunited with Rome, and Elizabeth separated again and sort of did a mix of Catholicism and Protestantism in what is known informally by church historians as "the Elizabethan Settlement", although there was no formal document or negotiations, and to the world the church was Protestant. And it's swung different ways through the years, and there are different factions or groups within it today, and so on- Evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics, progressives, conservatives, high-church, low-church, broad church, etc..

I even attended an Epiphany Eucharist at an Episcopalian parish once that prayed for "the bishop of Rome", the Pope, by his first name and with the quoted title instead of the word Pope, in the Prayers of the Faithful right after praying for their priests, their dioceasen bishop, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Most Episcopalian parishes don't do that, obviously, but I've heard it done with my own ears.

One thing everyone historically has tended to agree on, though, is that while national churches should be affiliated with each other if possible and that Anglicans might view oversees bishops as being first or otherwise hierarchically higher in honor than their own bishops, that local decisions are made locally- that the power rests in the diocese and the national church. This started first with the Church of England saying that versus Rome or what is today Italy, and I think it still holds true for the American Church versus England (Although not necessarily in an adversarial way, of course).

Some conservatives, appalled by liberals or progressives gaining in their minds too much influence in the American Church, have appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury to step in, and talked about giving him real power over the Anglican Communion. However, he does not have real power outside of England. He's not supposed to. Conservatives understandably are looking for a way to kind of get their way on some things, but in trying to stop what they might view as unanglican or unchristian things, they are often themselves going against a key Anglican principle.

The ABC is not the Anglican Pope. He's got real power in his diocese and in his country. Elsewhere, he's a figurehead. Not a figurehead in a bad way, in fact he's highly honored and gets to chair meetings and so on and so forth, and many people read what he writes and listen to what he says with great respect. A lot of people around the world pray for him. But, in the end, the American church has, is, and will decide what's best for the American church. If they wanted a Pope, they'd become Roman Catholics and get the real one.

Also, the Anglican Communion has only existed since the 19th century. It's a great institution, for the most part, that allows people to be a part of something that constitutes the third largest Christian organization in the world behind the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (70 millionish members globally). The Episcopal Church in the US was actually a big part of founding and funding it. It allows people to work together in common mission to help the global poor, to discuss faith issues globally, and to be in communion to where bishops, priests, and deacons in any member church can theoretically transfer to any other member church and have their ordinations and consecrations recognized (Although in reality sometimes this is challenged in the case of women or gays, sadly). People who travel or move can find a local parish affiliated in some respects with their home church to go to.

But the Anglican Communion can't set policy for national churches. The only power it really has in that respect is to say "You're in" or "You're out". The Episcopal Church is a big part of their overseas missions financailly and even in terms of people-power. They are unlikely to truly eject it. They are just mad at it and/or placating the global southern provinces that are really ticked.

And if the Anglican Communion did ever eject the Episcopal Church, it'd just carry on as it always has. It doesn't represent a theological issue for *most* Episcopalians (Because of the wide variety of belief allowed in the Episcopal Church, I have heard a few who say it would for them, but they are a small minority). They started the Anglican Communion, in many respects, and they could, and probably would, quickly form an alternative communion or other global structure and/or align with other churches around the world, or some of the same ones they were in the AC with, like, perhaps the Anglican Church of Canada and such, by similar agreements.

They could sign their own ecumenical agreements with Old Catholics in Europe and some global Lutherans and such as well. Right now, the Episcopal Church has an agreement with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America that is very close what they have with other Anglican churches as part of the Anglican Communion. They're working on something with the United Methodists (Another American church), although differences of belief and practice prevent it from being quite as close as what they have with ELCA at the moment (Though there are further talks).

I think in general the EC only does these full communion talks and, in the case of ELCA, a full communion agreement, with other churches in the United States, because they figure the Anglican Communion is their global full communion agreement and has the international aspect covered. If they lost the Anglican Communion, they'd probably quickly start negotiating and signing with foreign Anglican churches that wanted to enter into full communion with them or stay in full communion with them even if England did not, plus maybe churches that aren't Anglican in other countries, but are close, like various Catholic groups that aren't in union with Rome and Lutherans who are progressive or moderate, and so forth, reflecting groups maybe a little more Catholic or a little more Protestant, but "in the ballpark", so to speak. The Lutheran Church of Sweden, which is Lutheran but keeps Apostolic Succession through bishops would be an obvious church to talk to.

So, I don't think in the long run the EC would be isolated if the AC kicked them out. They'd find ways to have full communion with various Anglican and other churches around the world anyway. It'd take some time, but it'd happen.

Most Episcopalians would be very sad not to be in the Anglican Communion, though, because they take pride and get joy from their affiliation with all these historic and vibrant churches around the world, including the Church of England, and the ancient See of Canterbury, that are as Anglican in character as they are, and that are one group rather than a series of one to one agreements. They also like that they can help the global poor by working with poor Anglican provinces in Africa and such as partners. However, in the end, the Episcopal Church would just keep on being the Episcopal Church if it were ejected- it doesn't *need* Canterbury, it simply wants Canterbury.

Fish and Bread said:

Most Episcopalians would be very sad not to be in the Anglican Communion, though, because they take pride and get joy from their affiliation with all these historic and vibrant churches around the world, including the Church of England, and the ancient See of Canterbury, that are Anglican in character as they are, and that are one group rather than a series of one to one agreements. They also like that they can help the global poor by working with poor Anglican provinces in Africa and such as partners. However, in the end, the Episcopal Church would just keep on being the Episcopal Church if it were ejected- it doesn't *need* Canterbury, it simply wants Canterbury.

Click to expand...

This paragraph, I think, drives at part of what is causing these issues.

A large part of the problem here is not that the EC ordained women before the rest of the world was ready, or accepts gays, or *insert issue here*. It is that when there are issues where there is unresolved disagreement, and the rest of the church has asked the EC to wait and not take action until there is some resolution, the EC has taken the attitude of, "Well, we don't need you and we're going to do what we want."

If we really see ourselves as a communion in any meaningful sense we do need each other. We are incomplete without each other. We are impoverished if any move away. And the fact that there seems to be this - forgive me, I can't think of a better word - but this aloofness that says, "We walk alone, we don't need you, and we're doing to do what we want whether it fractures relationship or not," well, that's very hurtful and problematic, and is fuelling events like this suspension.

Paidiske said:

This paragraph, I think, drives at part of what is causing these issues.

A large part of the problem here is not that the EC ordained women before the rest of the world was ready, or accepts gays, or *insert issue here*. It is that when there are issues where there is unresolved disagreement, and the rest of the church has asked the EC to wait and not take action until there is some resolution, the EC has taken the attitude of, "Well, we don't need you and we're going to do what we want."

If we really see ourselves as a communion in any meaningful sense we do need each other. We are incomplete without each other. We are impoverished if any move away. And the fact that there seems to be this - forgive me, I can't think of a better word - but this aloofness that says, "We walk alone, we don't need you, and we're doing to do what we want whether it fractures relationship or not," well, that's very hurtful and problematic, and is fuelling events like this suspension.

Click to expand...

I can't speak for the Episcopal Church. I don't want anyone to think ill of them because of a badly worded, possibly ill-informed, defense of them from me. So, let me just say that upfront- my words are my own, and my assumptions are only that, assumptions. What I interrupt as motivation may not be the motivation, and so on and so forth.

With that said, my feeling is this: I do think the Episcopal Church values communion. I do think it values it's church partners around the world. If nothing else, as the Episcopal Church becomes an increasingly liberal or progressive church (Not universally down to each diocese or parish, just in a general sense of direction, averaging everything out), I think the Episcopal Church by it's very nature at this point values diversity and different cultures, which the world churches to some degree provide.

Where I think the tension comes in is that at certain points, the Episcopal Church feels that historically they themselves and maybe some other Anglican churches or the Christian Church as a whole, has acted unjustly or discriminatorily in certain cases. While sin is not a word I think they like to frequently bandy about, I think many folks felt they had sinned, and maybe more importantly were sinning by not allowing women to fulfill their vocations as priests in the 70s, or homosexuals as bishops or as married people in the 21st century, and so on and so forth.

It's one thing to feel like one's institution sinned in the past, or that even you personally had sinned in the past, but that those things were really in the past, and everyone had progressed forward, and that the institution or you as an individual could be forgiven and move on, but another to think you are still sinning. And corporate and individual sin start to feel mixed for, say, someone who is a bishop or a lay person with significant institutional power.

So, the Episcopal Church, or the group within it that made these changes, may have felt they were currently sinning by not allowing these things, and every day and every action they took or didn't take to make things right would be one more sin. Maybe in some cases progressives don't like to use the word "sin", or don't believe that things traditionally thought of as sins are always sins, but I think progressives do believe that people can miss the mark, as the Greek translation of sin would imply.

That gave the movement for change probably a certain urgency. Every day they weren't walking what they considered a just course, and were denying women vocations, and denying little girls the opportunity to look up at the altar and know that that could be them and that they were equal in the eyes of God, and allowing an inadvertent message to be sent to those girls that certain opportunities would be forever barred to them, that was another day they felt they were hurting people.

And, in addition to that, they maybe felt not only was the lack of change causing pain in the short run, but that it would never come if it wasn't forced.

Would even the Episcopal Church itself have women priests today if not for the brave bishops in the 70s who ordained 6 or 7 women in Philadelphia against the canons of the church and then forced the Episcopal Church itself to really make a decision?

If the diocese of New Hampshire hadn't elected a gay priest to be their next bishop, and forced the General Convention to vote it up or down and forced the other bishops to follow through a consecrate him or not consecrate him, would the convention have acted on it's own eventually?

Will some of the African Anglican provinces that don't allow gay bishops *ever* allow gay bishops? Let's not even say ever, because that's an awfully long time, let's say, will they allow gay bishops in the next 50 years?

I think the Episcopal Church and the people within it of progressive stripes probably feel like these changes don't come unless they create an environment where they can happen, which may mean not following the letter of canon, or not in the end abiding by a non-binding vote from their sibling churches at Lambeth, and so on and so forth.

I think the Episcopal Church values coming to common decisions together with others a great deal in theory. I think they love some of these Global South churches a great deal in terms of mission type things they do down there. There are a ton of "sister parish" type relationships where Episcopalians go to a parish in Africa or something and build houses or churches or put up mosquito nets or whatever they can do to help at the ground level. I do think they take what the bishops of these churches say seriously.

But if in the end you hit what you think is the end of the road. You think it's a sin not to make these changes, and that people are suffering and will suffer because of you. Your church partners don't think it's a sin to not make these changes, and think in fact it *is* a sin to make these changes. You don't see either position changing. Do you make the changes? I think many in the Episcopal Church felt they ethically had no choice but to make them.

Now, having said that- I do think maybe on homosexuality, say, certainly the western countries would probably have eventually come around, including England in the end. But would Bishop Akinola and his province? Probably not.

On women priests, I think +Libby in England today wears a miter because of what American bishops did in Philadelphia in the 70s. Eventually, there would have been women bishops in England, but it would have been further down the road if America hadn't pushed it. I think the EC thinks they have to push.

Whether they really do have to push or they don't, I don't know. But I think in their hearts, they think they are doing things the only way possible, that some of their partner churches will only come around if they see how something works in practice elsewhere and it moves them to rethink things.

Honestly, it's probably more the third world that wouldn't come around than the west, but even in the west.... There are no Roman Catholic women priests recognized by the Vatican Curia. There won't be anytime soon, it doesn't look like, if ever.

To a certain extent, the other thing the Episcopal Church did by taking a stand was send up a signal flare to progressive Roman Catholics and other similar churches who weren't being spiritually fed that "Hey, here's where the progressives are. Join us, and they'll be more progressives here, and we'll get more progressive yet.". If not for the influx of progressives and moderates after Bishop Pike's comments in Time (Or was it Newsweek?) about the Virgin Birth, and after the Philadelphia ordinations, and everything else, might the church have stayed in a more conservative position? Maybe instead of progressive people coming over, conservative people would have, seeing an unchanging church in the face of societal change, and then there would never have been women priests.

Maybe the Episcopal Church saw that this was their moment. It hadn't come before, and maybe it'd never come again. And they had to act when they acted, both tactically and as a matter of conscience.

Maybe.

I wasn't there and I'm not a mind reader.

It's just a thought (or a series of thoughts ).

My understanding as an interested observer is that the Archbishop of Canterbury has one possible role. People sometimes go to him to recommend representatives from the Anglican communion for ecumenical groups. To the extent that this is the case, he could refuse to name anyone from TEC. My impression is that this is not happening.

F&B, that's a really thoughtful response, and I do appreciate it, thank you.

I guess... it's easy from outside America to think that they're falling into the trap of thinking that what happens in America is what matters most. Do they forget that the first women were actually ordained in Hong Kong? I don't think we need the American church to think they're leading the way and being the pioneer for where we will all follow.

But anyway. That is as much a cultural gripe as a theological one. The discussion of perceptions of sin is probably more to the point. And it's not as if I don't sympathise with some of these causes; clearly I do! And I know from my own experience how much women in other denominations or even dioceses appreciate having us to point to.

But as long as one group values getting its own way (right now) more than it values unity, we're going to be doing this are-we-schisming-or-not dance that is such a burden (and here the blame lies at the feet of the conservatives just as much as the progressives; GAFCON etc did not help this situation either)!

Paidiske said:

"Well, we don't need you and we're going to do what we want."

Click to expand...

As a member of The Episcopal Church, I must point out that that characterization is not really representative of our philosophy.

What is representative is, "We need you and we must do what's right."

It's not a matter of wants.

Fish and Bread said:

While sin is not a word I think they like to frequently bandy about, I think many folks felt they had sinned, and maybe more importantly were sinning by not allowing women to fulfill their vocations as priests in the 70s, or homosexuals as bishops or as married people in the 21st century, and so on and so forth.

Click to expand...

This is much more representative of the process and discernment our church has gone through. And I will also be the first in line to say that we haven't implemented dealing with these issues of sin in the most optimal fashion (and for example; I myself am an outspoken critic of Bp. Robinson as an individual, but not of the acknowledgement he represents). But we have proactively tried to deal with these issues to "go and sin no more."

Paidiske said:

F&B, that's a really thoughtful response, and I do appreciate it, thank you.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

I guess... it's easy from outside America to think that they're falling into the trap of thinking that what happens in America is what matters most. Do they forget that the first women were actually ordained in Hong Kong?

Click to expand...

I was about to mention that I think that the first female priest ordained in Hong Kong (and the Anglican Communion as a whole) has a feast day on the Episcopal Church liturgical calendar and that Hong Kong suspended the practice after World War 2 was over, but I thought I'd better look this up first, and while I was technically correct (Her feast day is January 24th, added to the EC's liturgical calendar in 2003, and Hong Kong did stop ordaining women after the war [Her ordination being the only one, with her resigning her license at the war's end as well]), I was unaware of one very important fact (or had forgotten):

Florence Li Tim-Oi's ordination in Hong Kong during World War 2 under emergency conditions was not only the first female ordination in the Anglican Communion in general, but Hong Kong was also the first Anglican province to start ordaining women as a regularized practice, beginning in 1971. The Philadelphia Eleven weren't ordained in the US until 1974, the Anglican Church of Canada ordained women under regular church order in 1976, and the first "authorized" ordination of women in the Episcopal Church in the United States wasn't until 1977.

So, you're absolutely right to point out that some Americans, namely me, may be forgetful about church history outside the borders of our country sometimes. However, I wouldn't take anything I forget to be reflective of the Episcopal Church. As you may have seen in other forums, I'm kind of a Roman Catholic/Episcopalian/Unchurched something or other (I suppose technically a lapsed member of both churches, although heavily influenced by both, Roman Catholicism maybe more instinctively as the church I was raised in and Episcopalianism maybe in the sense that it was the church I chose as a young person for several years, which being more important to the present, it's hard to say. I did go to an Episcopalian parish for Christmas Eve- which, now that I've mentioned it here, you'll undoubtedly see brought up in the Roman Catholic area to try to silence my right to speak at some point by someone in the next few days ), or worse, according to many. I wouldn't presume to speak for any church on these matters and my views and understandings may not be reflective of anything much.

I do enjoy chatting about church history and theology, though- both Roman Catholic and Anglican/Episcopalian.

I don't think we need the American church to think they're leading the way and being the pioneer for where we will all follow.

But anyway. That is as much a cultural gripe as a theological one.

Click to expand...

I think it's a valid one to some degree, but in all fairness, I should mention that it is American political leftists who are most likely to be against the concept of American exceptionalism, and theological leftists who are most likely to be pushing for more social justice in the way the church operates, and, while they are not always the same people (People can be politically left-wing and theologically right-wing or vice-versa), there is a strong correlation. So, it is probably the people pushing for the changes who are the least likely Americans to feel that America is somehow instrinsically better than others nations or to automatically assume that America is leading the way. However, the general culture of the nation in that regard probably does seep in to some extent in terms of making assumptions.

The discussion of perceptions of sin is probably more to the point. And it's not as if I don't sympathise with some of these causes; clearly I do! And I know from my own experience how much women in other denominations or even dioceses appreciate having us to point to.

But as long as one group values getting its own way (right now) more than it values unity, we're going to be doing this are-we-schisming-or-not dance that is such a burden (and here the blame lies at the feet of the conservatives just as much as the progressives; GAFCON etc did not help this situation either)!

Click to expand...

The problem seems to be that neither group will walk away. GAFCON and conservative American splinter groups from the Episcopal Church say that the Episcopal Church has sinned horribly in affirming homosexuals, but yet GAFCON never actually leaves the Anglican Communion over it (We're sitting here discussing this 13 years after the ordination of +Robinson), and their friends in the conservative Anglican splinter groups claim to be full constituent members of the Anglican Communion via their connections to GAFCON, which they are not (Having left the Episcopal Church, and the Episcopal Church being the only recognized AC province in the US), even though they complain quite loudly about a certain province within said communion and how they don't want to be in a communion with them!

Meanwhile, the Episcopal Church shows no fight and keeps accepting punishment after punishment while sometimes agreeing not to do things (Like the moratorium on consecrating gay bishops) and then doing them anyway. Now, granted, the former actually sounds very Christian in a certain context- certainly Jesus accepted a lot of undeserved punishment, and the second thing could be said to be a matter of some church officials agreeing to externally imposed conditions that they don't have the proper authority to agree to and then the proper authorities "violating" conditions that were never actually properly agreed to, and certainly not agreed to by them. However, part of me does occasionally say, "Maybe these guys should just tell the Anglican Communion and GAFCON to deal with the changes they've made or kick them out and leave if they refuse to make a decision by a certain date. Is this whole thing going to carry on until 2079 or something? Maybe the Episcopal Church should force a resolution. If nothing else, maybe suspend all contributions to the Anglican Communion and all of it's affiliated groups until they reinstate the suspended persons to their proper places on their proper committees, or until the suspensions expire, whichever comes first".

However, you know, in a sense, this could work out for the best. Maybe this drags out so long everyone forgets what they were arguing about or throws up their hands and just says "Enough!" and agrees to accept each other's differences. I'm not sure that's the way things work in real life, but if they worked anywhere, it'd be in a stereotypical version of polite English culture, and this is a communion centered in England, so... You never know.

I don't know about the leaving thing... I'm not sure what the legal situation in America is.

But I know that here in Australia, the conservatives were told that the legal situation is such that if they left, they left everything behind; they could not keep the land, the buildings, the wealth (and Sydney is - or was, not sure post-GFC if it's still true - the wealthiest diocese in the world); like those who left for the ordinariate, they would leave with nothing and what they had controlled (in a financial sense) would be left behind for those with whom they disagreed to manage. So far that's been enough to make them stay Anglican in name and at law, if not in spirit.

Paidiske said:

I don't know about the leaving thing... I'm not sure what the legal situation in America is.

But I know that here in Australia, the conservatives were told that the legal situation is such that if they left, they left everything behind; they could not keep the land, the buildings, the wealth (and Sydney is - or was, not sure post-GFC if it's still true - the wealthiest diocese in the world); like those who left for the ordinariate, they would leave with nothing and what they had controlled (in a financial sense) would be left behind for those with whom they disagreed to manage. So far that's been enough to make them stay Anglican in name and at law, if not in spirit.

Click to expand...

The Diocese owns the property. The biggest legal battles (40 million USD and counting) come from when the entire Diocese decided to leave and the national church tried to keep their property. In preparation for leaving, some parishes sold their property and began leasing, but another particularity in the United States was that the Episcopal Church was able to take the pensions of any priests that left. In Canada, Labour law prevents that, but not in the US. So yes, many parishes lost absolutely everything for the sake of Christ, others loss less and even those that shouldn't have lost much have been stuck in legal battles with the national church.

CanadianAnglican said:

but another particularity in the United States was that the Episcopal Church was able to take the pensions of any priests that left

Click to expand...

In truth, the pensions weren't taken. They are still there for the priests who earned them, and this was clarified by the national church. This rumor started due to a misunderstanding.

CanadianAnglican said:

The Diocese owns the property.

Click to expand...

Additionally, with the case of TEC most Dioceses own the property in trust to the national church for the legacy of their forebears.

Some own their property outright, and some a mixture, so these things are being sorted out on a case-by-case basis.

SteveCaruso said:

In truth, the pensions weren't taken. They are still there for the priests who earned them, and this was clarified by the national church. This rumor started due to a misunderstanding.

Click to expand...

Steve, both posts are good clarifications - thanks. People misrepresent both issues all the time in this discussion.

The only problem with the pensions it that the priests are no longer able to contribute to the pension plan (obviously) once they are no longer affiliated with the national church. So if they are not vested (5 years), or haven't served long enough to be retirement-eligible, they definitely don't see the intended return on the money paid into the plan. Part of me says that's what you get if you leave the church...but the other part remembers that an individual priest had very little say over the matter in the case of the dioceses which left.