Primatial creep explained :: Loren Mead

Posted at The Episcopal Majority is Loren Mead's letter on state-side primatial creep:

I come from the branch of the Episcopal Church that knows that our constitution was not shaped by the federal Constitution (the way all the confirmation classes insist), but by the form of government the United States had when the Church constitution was produced: "The Articles of Confederation." So our constitution doesn't really have an executive branch (or president); its focus is in legislative authority that is bicameral – with only vestigial executive and afterthought judicial powers, and no provision for a president or for "national" taxation or rules. So we provided for a presiding officer for each of our legislative branches, but the presiding bishop has no authority in any diocese, and can only act in a diocese by the authority of the diocesan bishop.
...
I think it was in John Hines' time that "primatial creep" set in. The instrument was the General Convention Special Program (GCSP). ... You'll remember the fireworks and anxiety about national staff "interfering" with dioceses (especially dioceses in the South where racial issues were painful and keen). Primatial creep is not my name for what happened to the Presiding Bishop – but for what happened to the House of Bishops. The House of Bishops had to work with conflict between dioceses and 815. (By now it had been built. Remember, it was 1963 when it was finished and we actually had national staff located in one place.)That – in my opinion – was when the House of Bishops first began usurping the power of the bicameral legislative process that was in our constitution.

Emphases in the original.

The Spring House of Bishops meeting

In glorious detail as told by Bishop Kelsey (Northern Michigan). It's lengthy but well worth reading in its entirity. If you want a digest see Jim Naughton's selection.

Among the points Kelsey covers:

1. How the coalition formed that supported Resolutions 1 and 2. Including how reports by TEC's Covenant design group representatives, including Ephraim Radner, influenced the dynamic at the HoB of the coalition.

2. The floor debate and amendments to the resolutions.

3. Report of a meeting of American bishops and Rowan Williams subsequent to the Primates meeting.

4. Report of an insider's view of the Primates meeting.

5. Notes on the report by the Property Disputes Committee.

What The Bishops Didn’t Do :: Bishop Epting

The three resolutions passed by the HoB are momentous and clear. But it is important to reflect on what the bishops did not do. Bishop Epting tells us:

What we did NOT do was to foreclose discussion on the Episcopal Church’s response to the main requests of the Primates’ Communique. We have not “ruled” on whether or not to reassure the Primates that General Convention meant what it said when it asked us and our Standing Committees not to give consent to any bishop-elect whose manner of life might prove of concern to the wider Anglican Communion and to clarify for them the status of the blessing of same-sex relationships in this church.
...
What the Episcopal Church’s bishops did not do is claim some kind of prelacy like the Primates have done, and to act in a high handed manner not permissable under the polity of either the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Communion.

Episcopal Life Online has more:

"We did not talk about gay bishops or same sex blessings," Jefferts Schori said in response to one question. "We did not begin to respond to the Primates' communiqué in that area."

Sisk said there was no discussion on a moratorium that the Primates have demanded. They want the Episcopal Church not to consider openly gay or lesbian clergy for the episcopate and for bishops not to authorize blessings of same-gender relationships. A deadline of September 30 has been set for the bishops to respond.

Sisk said a statement in one resolution, approved by the bishops that all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of the church "was not intended to signal anything more than what it says. We did not discuss the moratorium," he said. "That issue did not surface."

Roundup of MSM coverage of HoB resolutions

Thinking Anglicans is the place to go.

Dear Bishops: Keep it simple

From the Communique -

In particular, the Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church

1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144); and

2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, §134); unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion (cf TWR, §134).

The Primates request that the answer of the House of Bishops is conveyed to the Primates by the Presiding Bishop by 30th September 2007.

Keep it simple. Just say "we will" - unanimously. Given the Anglican ambiguity of the Communique, and given our polity, affirmation is open to many interpretations. As to negative consequences what could they be?

The danger of violating the KISS principle is that you allow minorities to highjack the process and exercise a veto. Do we really want to give Bishop Iker a veto? The problem isn't a holdout by a liberal bishop, but by a conservative one.

Thanks to a commenter at daily episcopalian for fomenting these ruminations.

I have other thoughts on the HOB response planted here.