Q: Has the Episcopal Church, USA acted unlawfully by violating its own constitution and canons?

A: No. The diocese of New Hampshire and ECUSA followed every procedure spelled out in diocesan and national canons and constitution. Canon Robinson was a priest in good standing in his diocese. This charge is based on two points: that the church acted contrary to the “faith and order” of the Anglican Communion, and that it acted in defiance of Anglican Communion directives.  In fact, it is the American Anglican Council and the self-anointed “orthodox” primates who are acting unlawfully. They have tried to undo decisions duly prayed over and passed at the ECUSA’s 74^th General Convention by appealing to outside bodies, refusing to acknowledge a legal election and consecration of a bishop of the church, demanding that the Anglican primates assume powers never granted them, and insisting that the ECUSA ignore its own constitution while planning for alternative oversight for dissenting parishes. 

Q: Did the ECUSA defy the Anglican Primates by consecrating Gene Robinson as bishop?

A: No. The primates do not have the power to forbid a province to do anything. Clearly a majority of primates wish that New Hampshire had chosen another person as bishop. The statement issued by the primates on October 17 acknowledged that Robinson’s consecration would tear the fabric of the communion, regretted that the Episcopal Church’s actions (and actions of the Canadian Church) did not represent the communion as a whole and short-circuited the dialog on human sexuality called for by the 1998 Lambeth meeting. The primates asked provinces to consider (in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury) providing alternative oversight for dissenting parishes, and requested that the Archbishop appoint a special commission to explore issues of governance within the communion. This commission is to report within a year. Most of all, the primates urged that no province take precipitous action and to wait for the commission report. The primates wrote their statement knowing that the Robinson consecration was going forward, thus the consecration itself should not be considered a “precipitous action.”

Q: How does the Anglican Communion Work?

A: The Anglican Communion is a fellowship of independent provinces/national churches sharing a common tradition and all “in communion” with the Archbishop of Canterbury.  The Communion was created by the formation of the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. after the American Revolution and consecration of its first bishops by the Scottish and English Anglican bishops. The Communion has no coercive power over any of its constituent members. The three existing mechanisms of encouraging cooperation are the Lambeth Conference (a world-wide meeting of bishops, hosted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, held every 10 years which can pass resolutions), the primates’ meetings (which meet yearly to consult with each other and can issue advice and statements), and the Anglican Consultative Council (which includes laity and clergy other than primates, and again offers advice on issues of interest to the whole communion). The first Lambeth Conference occurred in 1888. The meeting of the primates is a very recent addition. The current understanding of the Anglican Communion was expressed in documents at the 1930 Lambeth Conference.

Q: What does “faith and order” mean?

A: The main charge against the Episcopal Church, USA, is that it has violated the received “faith and order” of the Anglican Communion as defined in the Book of Common Prayer (BCP), Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, and Thirty-Nine Articles by consecrating as bishop a homosexual man living in a committed partnership and by allowing local areas to experiment with same-sex partnership blessings.  This argument requires a multi-step interpretation reading into these documents a specific narrow biblical interpretation. This narrow reading ignores the clear definitions of faith given in the documents themselves. ‘Order’ in these documents refers to governance, and specifically the tradition of Apostolic Succession of Bishops. The meaning of “Faith” is discussed below.

• The BCP uses the terms faith and order in vows taken at ordination, but does not define them there. The Catechism (both in the 1928 BCP and the 1979 edition) defines “faith” as those things contained in the Creeds and necessary to salvation. Holy Scripture is revered as providing the confirmation of the Creed’s truth, not as an independent source of core doctrine.  The Catechism does discuss how one should act, recommending the Ten Commandments, encouraging chaste living, and noting the obligations to “Love justice, do mercy and walk humbly with your God” and “to love your neighbor as yourself.” Nowhere does the BCP address homosexuality directly. 
   
• The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral (1886, 1888) uses the phrase “faith and order” twice and then gives a definition of the “substantial deposit of Christian Faith and Order” to be found in Christianity as understood by the early church, which must not be sacrificed in the interests of unity. The “sacred Deposit” consists of four things: scripture as “revealed Word of God,” the Nicene Creed “as the sufficient statement of the Christian Faith,” the two sacraments (baptism and communion), and the “Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples . . . .” The 1888 document clarified that Holy Scripture (defined as Old and New Testaments) should be considered “containing all things necessary to salvation,” and as “the rule and ultimate standard of faith.” The 1888 document added the Apostles’ Creed as the “Baptismal Symbol” and reiterated that the Nicene Creed was the “sufficient statement of the Christian faith.”  In other words, the core doctrines of the church are found in the Creeds (which do not mention homosexuality), and that the creeds are based on revealed truth in scripture. The Quadrilateral does not require or articulate any particular interpretation of scripture, but rather is open to many.
   
• The Thirty-Nine Articles were drafted in a early stage of the English Reformation and were designed to distinguish the church from certain “errors” of the Roman Catholic Church, and to set limits on the more radical expressions of the Reformation. In 1801 the U.S. Church adopted a modified version of the Articles. Our current BCP lists these as “historic documents” (the same category as the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral). The Articles define which parts of scripture are canonical; specify certain beliefs about Christ, the sacraments, and the validity of ministries. Nowhere do they directly address homosexuality, or the definition of a valid marriage. The statements about marriage are limited to reminding ordained clergy that they may lawfully marry, and stipulating that matrimony is not a Gospel sacrament. (The 1928 BCP Catedchism specified that Christ ordained only two sacraments and covered only the two Gospel sacraments, “Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.” The current BCP first discusses the “two great sacraments of the Gospel” and then includes marriage in a section on “Other Sacramental Rites” which while a “means of grace, they are not necessary for all persons in the same way that Baptism and the Eucharist are.”)

Q: What does it mean to be in “impaired communion”?

A: It means that another Church may not recognize actions of the “impaired” church. The Episcopal Church, USA has already been in impaired communion with a number of Anglican provinces for 25 years because they do not recognize women’s ordination, or in some cases recognize women’s ordination, but not women as bishops. So women priests cannot celebrate communion in Nigeria, and the ordinations performed by women are not recognized. Two provinces that have declared impaired communion with the ECUSA because of Bishop Robinson (Nigeria and Uganda) were already in impaired communion. No one has been ex-communicated. You can all take communion in any church of the Anglican Communion.

Q: What does Resolution 6 at the Pittsburgh September Special Convention do?

A: It tries to reverse national and diocesan canon law by denying that the Episcopal Church, USA has an interest in property owned by the diocese and parishes. The Board of Trustees of the Diocese of Pittsburgh has also voted to adopt this resolution.  Since 1979 the ECUSA has had a canon (I.7.4, commonly called the Dennis Canon) that explicitly stated that the national church has an interest in all property held by a parish or diocese, but that it would not exercise that interest as long as the parish remained “a part of, and subject to” the constitution and canons of the ECUSA. Courts have ruled many times at both state and national levels that the Episcopal Church is a hierarchical church, and that therefore property stays with the ECUSA when a group leaves. According to legal documents filed as part of a lawsuit, the Diocesan Board of Trustees has rescinded their support of Resolution 6, but the convention vote remains on record.

Q: But isn’t it only fair that a congregation gets to keep its property?

A: The current membership does not individually or personally own a church building, communion silver, endowments, etc.  After all, when a family moves to another state, the parish doesn’t buy out their “share” in the assets of the parish. Every generation of a parish cares for church property in trust for those to come, and as a sacred trust to honor the wishes of those who went before. A parish’s claim to property is collective, and parishes are not created as independent congregations but as communities of the Episcopal Church.  All of us in the Episcopal Church have a stake in every parish – diocesan, missionary, and national funds may have helped secure loans or encourage specific ministries of a parish; when we travel we expect to find active parishes that we can visit; we work collectively on many forms of ministry all in the name of the Episcopal Church. In other words, no parish is an island.

Q: Why is alternative oversight of dissenting parishes an issue?

A: It shouldn’t be. A diocese is a geographical unit. Diversity of belief and approach within the diocese is healthy and represents the diversity of the Episcopal Church. To insist on dealing only with a bishop or other similar-thinking parishes is to narrow the Episcopal Church and lose what can be learned from other approaches. If we believe the historic documents of the church, alternative oversight is unnecessary. Article XXIII of the Articles of Religion defines a lawful minister as a person “chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers.” Thus anyone ordained or consecrated following the usual procedures of the ECUSA is a valid minister. A belief that a bishop or priest has been immoral does not negate the validity of the orders. Article XXVI states that the worthiness or unworthiness of a minister does not affect the validity of the sacraments.  These two Articles were the Anglican way of declaring themselves against the Donatism heresy - a heresy that confuses the office held by an individual with the personal attributes of the individual, and insisted on absolute purity of belief and life. Nonetheless, the ECUSA, in the interests of accommodating diversity, has offered a plan to accommodate parishes that refuse to deal with their own bishop. This plan was being developed before the primates made their request. The AAC has rejected the plan and demanded one that violates a clause of the ECUSA constitution. The clause has been in the constitution unchanged since the first constitution was adopted in 1789. 

Q: Why shouldn’t a diocese be the final judge of actions of general convention?

A: The General Convention is the ultimate authority in the ECUSA. From its beginning, the ECUSA has had a requirement that to be admitted to ECUSA a diocese must give unqualified accession to the constitution of the national church. It is the equivalent of the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution. Constituent parts of a whole do not have the power to overturn actions of that whole. The requirement for an unqualified accession is a part of the contract that created the diocese. To impair this clause in any way is to break the contract and put the diocese outside the Episcopal Church. The Diocese of Pittsburgh was recognized by General Convention in 1865. Given that the country was just bringing to a close four bloody years of civil war (a war that discredited ideas of nullification and secession), it is hard to believe that the Diocese of Pittsburgh somehow did not understand that this accession was permanent.

Q: What is so awful about not funding the national church? Contributions are voluntary aren’t they?

A: We all benefit from the work of ECUSA. It educates clergy and helps with national searches. It develops Sunday school materials, and resources for Altar Guilds and other groups. It is the source of our Book of Common Prayer, Hymnal and other resources for worship. The national church gives money back to parishes through grants and reaches out to those in need around the world. The national church helps fund missions in the U.S. and around the world. To accept services but refuse to help pay for them is selfish and immoral.

Q: I keep hearing the words “apostate,” “schismatic,” and “heresy” – What do they mean and do they apply to the current situation?

A: To be apostate is to rebel against the church and renounce its doctrines. Schism is the act of promoting discord, disharmony or division within a church by rejecting the governing authority of that church. Heresy is a belief that goes against the core doctrines of the church. The AAC has used all three terms to describe the ECUSA. However, it is the AAC that is rejecting the governing authority of the church and seeking to block the duly authorized canons and constitution. By calling for a “new reformation” the AAC is tacitly acknowledging that they are the innovators and are trying to change basic beliefs and polity of the church. A common trait of a schism is that each side will claim to be the protector of the “true” church. In reality, only one side will actually have the legal authority to be the church. In this case that is ECUSA. The AAC has applied both apostasy and heresy to ECUSA for supposedly renouncing the historic faith of the church. However, the core doctrines of Christianity are summed in the Creed, and no party in the current situation is challenging or renouncing the creed. What is tragic is that all parties in this dispute agree on Christology, the creeds, the sacraments and on the apostolic succession. They also agree that Holy Scripture is the revealed Word of God. Where they disagree is on what that Word reveals, and how it is revealed.