Fr. Dale Matson
“However, without forestalling what the Primates might say, I would repeat what I've said several times before - that any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church. The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such.” [Excerpted from a Letter to Bishop John Howe from Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury Oct 21st 2007]
I believe Bishop
Lawrence, the Communion Partner Bishops and the Anglican Communion Institute (ACI) had their their hopes riding on the eventuality of the Anglican Covenant and on
this chip provided by Rowan Williams. From this point on
there was a belief on the part of the Communion Partner Bishops, that no matter
what happened with TEC, they could hold on to the Canterbury Pedigree. They
could remain islands of safety within TEC because they wrongly believed in the immutability of the power of a bishop and the autonomy of a diocese. While they were making plans
to move on from TEC while still within TEC, they also correctly realized that
the polity of TEC was changing.
Several bishops
from TEC signed a statement on the ACI website. http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2009/04/bishops-statement-on-the-polity-of-the-episcopal-church/
that described the limitations of the power of the presiding bishop, the
historical autonomy of the dioceses and the voluntary relationship the
dioceses had with TEC. [April 2009) I believe they were further encouraged by
the following statement by Rowan Williams later that year.
“25. It is my
strong hope that all the provinces will respond favourably to the invitation to
Covenant. But in the current context, the question is becoming more sharply
defined of whether, if a province declines such an invitation, any elements
within it will be free (granted the explicit provision that the Covenant does
not purport to alter the Constitution or internal polity of any province) to
adopt the Covenant as a sign of their wish to act in a certain level of
mutuality with other parts of the Communion. It is important that there should
be a clear answer to this question.” [Post convention letter from Rowan
Williams July 27th 2009]
They were making a mistake to hang their hope on the myth of an eventual viable Anglican Covenant and on the statements of Rowan Williams that they wanted to believe. It was just as easy to see that Rowan Williams only saw Anglican Communion membership at the provincial level. Rowan Williams did make it clear in his Sept. 2009 letter that “as a matter of constitutional fact, the [Anglican Consultative Council] can only offer the covenant for ‘adoption’ to its own constituent bodies (the provinces).” Rowan Williams had changed his position and left the the bishops who had exposed themselves by visiting him to twist in the wind.
They were making a mistake to hang their hope on the myth of an eventual viable Anglican Covenant and on the statements of Rowan Williams that they wanted to believe. It was just as easy to see that Rowan Williams only saw Anglican Communion membership at the provincial level. Rowan Williams did make it clear in his Sept. 2009 letter that “as a matter of constitutional fact, the [Anglican Consultative Council] can only offer the covenant for ‘adoption’ to its own constituent bodies (the provinces).” Rowan Williams had changed his position and left the the bishops who had exposed themselves by visiting him to twist in the wind.
By wanting to sign on to the Anglican Covenant as dioceses, they also revealed themselves as a threat to TEC leadership who saw the Covenant as a threat to their own provincial autonomy. In the meantime TEC
leadership made its case that they were in fact, a hierarchical church and
always had been. This was important to establish in the ongoing and future lawsuits
and in changing the Title IV disciplinary canons.
“In September 2010,
we published an article demonstrating that the new Title IV disciplinary canons
enacted at the last General Convention are unconstitutional and unwise:
unconstitutional because they infringe on the exclusive rights of dioceses to
institute courts for the discipline of clergy and give the Presiding Bishop
metropolitical authority over other bishops; and unwise because they deny basic
due process rights to diocesan clergy.” http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2011/02/title-iv-revisions-unmasked-reply-to-our-critics/
By the time the ACI
issued the above statement in February of 2011, the die was cast and the
leadership of TEC were about to move forward against the islands of safety.