DISCUSSION DOCUMENT

Towards a Coherent National Church in the United States of America

July 4, 2002

PLEASE NOTE: The following proposals are precisely that—proposals intended to foster discussion among American Anglicans of traditional faith and practice. No one involved in the preparation or distribution of these proposals has the desire (let alone the authority) to impose these arrangements on anyone.

I. Introduction

Each year on July 4^th, we Americans celebrate our national Independence Day, and it is from the perspective of the United States as a nation that we offer these proposals to our fellow Anglicans for their consideration. The principles of nationhood and of national churches are important to Anglicans for two chief reasons. First, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ used the language of nations in his Great Commission: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19). Second, the Church of England, from which the Anglican churches in other nations had their foundation, justified its 16^th century Reformation on the grounds that it was a coherent national church and, thus, a self-governing constituent of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of the Creeds, capable of reforming itself on the basis of Scripture, tradition, and evangelical necessity.

Upon the successful conclusion of our War of Independence in 1783, Anglicans living in our newly independent nation set about the task of reorganizing themselves as a coherent national church to serve God within the United States of America according to the Anglican Way. To do so demanded more than the re-creation of the Church of England in America. It required an adaptation of the Anglican Way to a republic (in which, for example, civil constitutions forbid establishment) and to a vastly greater geographic area that included within its boundaries a larger diversity of local customs and emphases among the faithful than was found in England at that time.

During the years of discussion and meetings that led to the organization of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America at the General Convention in Philadelphia in 1789, a way was found to be the Anglican church in, of, and for the new nation. Coherence as a national church was achieved through compromise in non-essential details (such as matters of local custom), through respect for the identity of the local churches that were to be the constituents of the new national church, and through the careful preservation of the faith and practice of the undivided Church as received through the Church of England.

There were missteps, of course. The first proposed edition of the Book of Common Prayer proved to be inadequate to maintain the full faith and practice of the Church. The spiritual authority of bishops had to be asserted against an overabundance of democratic zeal. The religious and civil rights of members, who were citizens, rather than subjects, had to be clarified. But these and other obstacles were overcome with patience and hard work.

What emerged from these labors was a remarkably balanced “national church,” defined as the spiritual communion among the Anglican jurisdictions (state churches, later dioceses) that made up the Church in the United States. This church was not incorporated because a spiritual relation cannot be made a matter of civil law. Unity was achieved by cooperative effort among the local jurisdictions and by a mutual adherence to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Church, as expressed in the Book of Common Prayer and other explicit and agreed-to formularies.

So, what went wrong, and why is it necessary for us to discuss once again both reform and coherence? First, certain factions within the Episcopal Church have transformed what were once instruments of unity and cooperation (such as the General Convention and the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society) into instruments of coercion both in temporal and spiritual matters. The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society, through the grossest sort of subterfuge, has been reinvented as “The Episcopal Church, Inc.”—not a missionary society at all, but a holding company for wealth and power exacted from the innocent people of the Church. The General Convention is now the source of doctrinal revision and deviation, imposed by force, rather than a place where the faithful meet to maintain truth and good order.

The need for reform is obvious, but the way forward is less so. While valiant and noble efforts have been made by organizations within the Episcopal Church and by new jurisdictions formed to address and correct the deformities of the Episcopal Church, these efforts have not yet achieved the coherence of a national church. No one element of the present reform efforts, however faithful, represents the Church in the Anglican tradition in this nation as a whole. This lack of coherence, then, is a serious obstacle to complete and wholesome reform since, under the Anglican understanding of the common law of the Christian Church, the authority of a national church is necessary to effect true reform.

What follows, therefore, is a set of concrete suggestions for the recovery by faithful American Anglicans of their coherence as a national church. Such a recovery will not be fast, simple, or easy, any more than the original organization of the Church in this nation was any of these things. The forces of disorder have sown great confusion and injured a great number of the most faithful, leaving them understandably cautious about working with others. Our nation is larger now than anyone imagined in 1789, and it is even more diverse in local customs and perspectives.

We know that an over-simplified “one size fits all” approach to unity and cooperation will not work. The attempts of the General Convention to centralize authority, after all, have led to nothing but division and discord. We know, too, that coherence is an end result of faith and labor, and not a starting point. But we must also know this—what the first of the faithful here in the United States achieved in 1789, we can achieve as well, if we are faithful, too. It is the positive goods of the past that we seek to renew and bring forward, applying them to the future fidelity and welfare of the Anglican Way in America, and not to perpetuate the sins and errors that have deprived us of our coherence and effectiveness as a national church.

II. An Effort in Three Phases

We propose that coherence (which consists, at least, of good order, explicit faith, and sacramental communion) be pursued in three phases, each accomplishing a more profound unity and cooperation among the participating jurisdictions. The names assigned to these phases below are strictly arbitrary and a matter of convenience. It would be up to the participants to name their own collaborations.

A. The Association of Anglican Churches in America

In this first and initial phase, the Association would permit the participants to organize a structure (suggestions given below) for fostering such cooperation as they deemed proper; for identifying and addressing both agreements and disagreements; for defining the requirements for greater unity; for becoming known to one another; and for providing such mutual aid and recognition as the canons of the individual jurisdictions permit.

In this phase, all activities would be entirely voluntary, and the Association (or its officers) would not be permitted to speak or act on behalf of the whole. A chief purpose of this phase would be to develop the standards of faith and order necessary for any level of common organization or purpose. Until such standards are clear and explicit, no movement to the second phase should be undertaken.

B. The Fellowship of Anglican Churches in America

The essential feature of the Fellowship is the publication of explicit standards of membership and a clear statement of the scope and limits of mutual action. Each jurisdiction that chooses to participate as a member of the Fellowship will have to accede to these standards and statements according to its own internal polity and canon law. It will remain within the authority of each participating jurisdiction to withdraw from the Fellowship at any time, as long as this action is taken according to its internal polity in canon law.

In this phase, the members of the Fellowship will have the organized opportunity to examine the terms of unity and cooperation both in theory and practice, refining them as they deem necessary. It would be the duty of the Fellowship, if its members decide to proceed to the next phase, to establish the terms of full national communion and to draft the instruments that would put them into effect if adopted by the several jurisdictions.

C. The Communion of Anglican Churches in America

This third and final phase would consist of a national communion of Anglican jurisdictions in America, comparable to the communion of jurisdictions achieved in 1789, with some important distinctions based on the experience gained in the intervening centuries.

Each jurisdiction would retain its own identity and character, as well as its own internal governance, polity, and canon law (excepting only those matters contrary to the Word of God Written or inconsistent with the mutually established standards of membership). Member jurisdictions would be free to merge if they chose, but they could not be compelled to do so. New jurisdictions would be allowed to form or to join the Communion, but only with the consent of the existing membership. Member jurisdictions would be free to leave the Communion at any time, without penalty, if such a decision were made according to their internal polities.

Such legislation as adopted by the Communion would govern only the common life and interests of the national church. At the level of the Communion, disciplinary authority would consist entirely of the member jurisdictions’ ability, properly assembled, to vote to admonish, to suspend from voting or other privileges, or to expel a member jurisdiction judged guilty of an offense against faith or order. Any jurisdiction so accused would have the right to have its representatives confront its accusers and to offer a defense or case for mitigation, as well as any other rights associated with the due process of law. Individuals accused of offenses will be remanded to the jurisdiction of which they are members.

Once the Communion is formed by mutual accession to its constitution and canons, it will exist as a coherent national church able to govern its own affairs within the United States of America and capable of pursuing relations of communion with other national churches. It may well be that to approach these other national churches on the basis of their being “sister churches” will turn out to be the best method of maintaining right relations with the churches of the present Anglican Communion. Issues of faith and order will necessarily be addressed under the “sister church” method, obviating some of the confusion that proceeds from the lack of communion-wide canon law in the Anglican Communion. This method also has the potential to deal with the issue of geographical jurisdiction, since the American Communion will be able to deal with other churches and bodies as a coherent church in its own right, rather than as a mere movement to displace the Episcopal Church (which would be an irrelevancy to a coherent Anglican national church in America).

Notes on Section II

1. The main challenges of phase A (above) will be obtaining a large enough space for an initial meeting and the services of a organizer/organizing group that will not interfere with the participation of all those who identify themselves as Anglicans. Standards of membership and the discernment of such matters as need or are capable of correction ought to follow from initial meetings and conversations, rather than precede them. It is impractical and self-defeating to follow a method that defines standards first and then invites people or groups that meet them.

2. However well intended earlier efforts at unity have been, it is a mistake to insist that people agree before they gather, rather than after. It is illogical to assume that unity is a pre-requisite of the discussion of unity.

3. This proposal of three separate stages of unity and organization is not meant to exclude other approaches to unity, but only to address the frequently heard and reasonable observation, “Even if we met, we don’t have any defined course of action to pursue.” In contrast to plans for learned seminars or rallies of the faithful, this proposal is primarily a business agenda, defining the business of unity as defining standards of membership and belief and developing a workable polity.

4. The rationale of a three-stage process is the avoidance of the premature over-definition of the Anglican Way by churchmen of any one tendency, so as to permit the exploration of whether or not a comprehensive, but undeniably faithful, constituency can be gathered together for a true communion of Anglicans in the United States.

III. Some Important Principles and Considerations

A. We propose that no phase of the program described above be civilly incorporated at any time. A spiritual fellowship of jurisdictions is most likely to remain spiritual if it is not established by temporal means.

B. We propose that neither the Association, the Fellowship, nor the Communion be allowed to own property in its own name. Property within the several jurisdictions should be governed by the internal canon law of those jurisdictions. Property connected with common efforts should be placed under a board of trustees governed by the particular charter of the intended work.

C. We propose that any matters of civil law or property that are capable of dispute be governed by explicit civil contracts, deeds, etc., and that no temporal matter related to any phase of the proposed organization be governed by ecclesiastical law.

D. We propose that no national executive council or permanent committees ever be formed. Such activities as are necessary between meetings of the conventions/councils/synods of the national organization should be assigned by convention to committees or officers who must be reappointed, replaced, or retired by the following convention. No structure but the final spiritual union must have any ability to perpetuate itself.

E. We propose that organizations and non-aligned congregations be allowed to participate in each phase, with voice but no vote, according to the rules of order adopted by each gathering. We further propose that persons affiliated with organizations and non-aligned congregations be eligible to hold office or to serve on committees, if properly elected to do so.

F. We propose that none of the suggested phases be allowed to present itself as a “denomination,” but only as an Association, Fellowship, or Communion of ecclesiastical jurisdictions.

IV. Thoughts on Organization

We suggest that beginning with the organizing meeting of the Association, the following tri-cameral structure be adopted: a House of Bishops; a Senate; and a House of Deputies.

A. The House of Bishops will include all bishops attached to jurisdictions eligible to participate at the then-current phase of organization.

B. The Senate will consist of one priest (of at least five years service since ordination) and of one layman (of at least five years service since confirmation and at least 29 years of age) representing each eligible jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction will select its members of the Senate on the basis of its internal polity.

C. The House of Deputies will consist of one presbyter and one layman per thousand members, as certified and chosen by each participating jurisdiction, with every jurisdiction having at least one presbyter and one layman representing it.

Each house will adopt its own rules of order, both adoption and emendation of such rules requiring concurrence of at least 60% of those accredited and voting. Any member of either the Senate or of the House of Deputies may request a vote by orders, in which case both orders must concur for the matter to pass or be adopted. All actions before the Association, Fellowship, or Communion will require the concurrence of all three houses.

The presiding officer of the Senate will chair joint meetings of the lower houses. The presiding officer of the House of Bishops, with the assistance of the presiding officers of the lower houses, will chair joint meetings of the three houses.

As such time as the members of the House of Bishops deem it necessary, they may nominate a bishop having jurisdiction to become the Presiding Bishop of the Communion, with the advice and consent of the two lower houses. A fixed term may be specified by common consent. The duties of the Presiding Bishop (apart from those related to his own diocese, under the polity of his jurisdiction) would be to preside at meetings of the House of Bishops, at joint sessions of the three houses, and to take order when a candidate for consecration as a bishop has been constitutionally and canonically approved. We propose that the Presiding Bishop not be styled an archbishop, since he would have (under these terms) no archiepiscopal authority. Nothing in this proposal, however, is meant to disturb the internal polity of any of the participating jurisdictions.

V. Some Suggestions about Canon Law

A. We recommend that the model for corporate legislation in any of the three phases be based on the 1954 edition of White and Dykman, as adapted to present needs and circumstances. We would make the same recommendation to participating jurisdictions, but it must be clear that the individual jurisdictions are free to maintain their internal polity and canon law.

B. A layman learned in the law may be appointed chancellor of any of the three phases, with the approval of the three houses. With the advice and consent of the three houses, the chancellor may appoint up to four assistants, clerical or lay. Any chancellor is to be reminded that he is the legal advisor of the whole Association, Fellowship, or Communion, rather than the legal representative or agent of any one of the three houses.

C. As efforts toward unity progress, it may become necessary to have a committee on canon law. If such a committee is approved by the three houses, each jurisdiction should be allowed to appoint one member. The chancellor, if any, will chair this committee. If there is no chancellor, the committee will elect its own chairman.

D. If at some time an ecclesiastical court is desired, the following structure is recommended:

1. That each house appoint three of its members to the court;

2. That each panel of judges hearing a case consist of one member from each house;

3. That any decision or sentence be pronounced by the bishop member of the court;

4. That the Senate serve as a court of appeals, or provide for such a court;

5. That the ultimate court of appeals be the three houses in joint session.

The purpose of all courts at the national level shall be to interpret the shared law and to mediate disputes affecting the member jurisdictions.

VI. Liturgy

A. We propose that the standard of liturgy and worship be the 1662 English and 1928 American editions of the Book of Common Prayer.

B. We propose that, according to the rubric found on page vii of the 1928 BCP that the several jurisdictions be allowed to use such augmented versions of the above or such other devotions as have been approved under the polity of the various jurisdictions, subject to the direction of the various bishops ordinary.

C. We propose that when practical a liturgical committee be appointed to prepare such alternative services as are deemed by the common judgment to be necessary, as long as these alternative services are consistent in doctrine and order with the Book of Common Prayer.

VII. Transfer of Members and Clergy

A. We propose that as soon as the first phase of this proposal is in effect, members of the laity in good standing be provided letters of transfer from one participating jurisdiction to another upon their request.

B. We propose that members of the clergy be granted letters dimissory when moving from one participating jurisdiction to another, with the understanding that the receiving bishop has the right to refuse such letters or to examine members of the clergy presenting them on the basis of his pastoral judgment and the polity of his particular jurisdiction.

VIII. Conclusion

There are many other matters that will arise in the pursuit of a coherent national church, and certainly other (and perhaps better) proposals will be offered for our consideration. All that is intended here is to provide a place for the necessary thinking and debate to begin. With God’s grace and a good charity, we can succeed in growing closer and in offering a more effective common witness to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.