Autonomy Process: Fresh View Sought
Episcopal News Service. March 4, 1988 [88035]
GUATEMALA CITY (DPS, March 3) -- For the first time in 15 years, the Episcopal Church is preparing to breathe a fresh spirit into the complex process of diocesan and provincial autonomy.
In its first meeting ever outside the United States, the Executive Council spent nine days in Central America, visiting many dioceses and holding its regular February meeting here. And, although much of the meeting necessarily dealt with the mission and ministry of the region, much time and attention also fell on the questions around how these dioceses become autonomous provinces within the Anglican Communion.
By the second day of the meeting, two committees had spent time on the matter and the Council passed a resolution re-affirming the process and acknowledging its role in making it fruitful and committing itself to proposing to the General Convention the "revision and renewal... of its policy of assisting and supporting all dioceses seeking autonomy, in the attainment of their goals." (See Resolution text, page 33)
The evolution of the dioceses of Central and northern South America from missionary entities of the Episcopal Church into national Churches, and their further grouping into full Anglican provinces, dates back to the 1960's and the pioneering declaration of Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence in the Body of Christ which provided the theological framework for the process. Since then, the Diocese of Liberia has left the Church and become a full part of the Province of West Africa. The dioceses in the Philippines are poised on the verge of becoming a province, and Puerto Rico, Cuba, Costa Rica, Venezuela, and Colombia have achieved structural independence and are either under "metro-political" authorities devised through inter-Anglican agreements, or are preparing to become part of existing provinces in the Caribbean or South America.
However, the Church as a whole has not addressed the autonomy issue since the 1973 General Convention, and social, economic and political conditions -- as well as emerging theological and missiological scholarship - have left many of the structures, early covenants, and assumptions somewhat behind.
Furthermore, in the intervening years, little effort has been put into helping Episcopal parishes and dioceses keep up with the increasing complexities of autonomy except those places involved with pertinent Companion Relationships. As a result, certain misunderstandings -- such as the one that equates autonomy with financial independence -- have been left to stand and certain challenging opportunities -- involving the positive role of nationalism and the emerging regional consciousness and indigenous spirituality -- have lain fallow.
None of these issues, were resolved here -- none were even explored in depth -- but all emerged repeatedly and in various ways that served to make the Council aware of an unmet need.
First of all, it was brought to councillors' attention as they visited with the dioceses and learned something of the aspirations that shaped the mission of each. Then, early in the full meeting, the issue was raised directly in the reports from Bishop James Ottley, bishop of Panama and president of Province IX, and in those of other lay and clerical leaders from the province and the extra-territorial dioceses; most especially from Bishop Adrian Caceres of Ecuador who reported on the division of that country into two dioceses and of conversations with ARENSA, the Anglican region of northern South America, and from Sra. Rosa Brown whose report on the extra-territorial diocese of Costa Rica focused almost exclusively on that national Church's striving toward autonomy.
Finally, Bishop Leopold Frade added another dimension by reminding the Council -- of which he is a member -- that his diocese of Honduras is not involved in the process because they feel that their mission strategy demands different priorities.
This was the first airing of the autonomy process -- by those intimately concerned with it -- in recent years and it launched a thoughtful discussion from which the unanimously-approved resolution emerged a day later.
After hearing the reports and panel discussion, Council member the Rev. Donald Hungerford of Odessa, Tex., began the response by pointing out that "we don't want to imply that we are simply going to go away or pull the rug out from under autonomous dioceses. We need to develop some assurance of continuing assistance, love, and support as partners in the Gospel."
Council member Paul Frank of Akron, Ohio, agreed with Hungerford, "it is not in anyone's mind that we desert" but it was he who pointed out the gap since the issue had been addressed: "It has been a long time since the Church has spoken of its binding partnership with the Churches of Province IX, since 1973 in fact."
Others spoke of the personal relationships developed and the uneasiness that these might be lost in the institutional workings. Vincent Currie of Mobile, Ala., added the question over whether or not "partnership" wasn't a preferable term to "autonomy."
Ottley acknowledged the difference but pointed out: "One wants to affirm that one is heard. The voice of Latin America should be heard in Anglican deliberations. We want to make a contribution to Anglican affairs."
Bishop Donald Davis of Northwestern Pennsylvania, who has enjoyed a long, warm involvement in the Philippines, drew a parallel to a congregation moving from aided, mission status to full parish status within a diocese: "We are concerned with people being able to make responsible missionary decisions."