ESA Bishops Declare Church Still Needs a Missionary Diocese
Episcopal News Service. January 24, 1992 [92011]
Jeffrey Penn
Bishops of the Episcopal Synod of America (ESA) have unanimously expressed their desire to stay within the Episcopal Church but have also reaffirmed their support for a missionary diocese that many church leaders have called "schismatic."
In a January 17 statement released in Fort Worth, four active bishops and five retired bishops said that a nongeographic missionary diocese was necessary to protect traditionalists from what some ESA members have termed "persecution" by hostile, liberal bishops.
The nine ESA bishops said that their intentions have been misjudged, and that the purpose of the missionary diocese was "to enhance the mission of the church, not to fragment it." Some observers have said that the new statement by the ESA bishops represented a shift in tone, if not in substance. [See full text in Newsfeatures section.]
"Several saw the [missionary diocese proposal] as a defiant declaration of war -- but it was not intended as such," said Bishop William Wantland of Eau Claire in a telephone interview. Wantland, who signed the ESA statement, characterized it as a "clarification," saying that it "tries to bring everyone back to focus on the full intent on what was done by the ESA Synodical Council in Fresno."
The ESA bishops' new four-part statement called upon existing traditionalist congregations to remain in their own dioceses and work for reconciliation with bishops who do not agree with them. Whenever the congregations and bishops cannot work out their differences, the statement called upon ESA bishops to offer mediation "where possible without violating the convictions of the congregations or the principles of the ESA."
Asserting that the missionary diocese was formed on behalf of people who have already left the Episcopal Church, the ESA bishops claimed that it "is a vehicle for such people to find their place within the Anglican Communion."
The ESA bishops also suggested that the missionary diocese might be an evangelistic enterprise aimed at "evangelical and charismatic congregations and individuals never associated with Anglicanism who desire connection to the historic church."
Bishop Mark Dyer of Bethlehem (Penn.), who has criticized the ESA plan for the missionary diocese, said that, although he hasn't studied the full text of the new statement, "sounds heartening." Dyer said that the statement represents "a step in the right direction" if it is "an attempt to return to the center."
Dyer said that he thought it was a good idea for ESA bishops to meet with other bishops they perceive as uncaring. However, he continued to insist that it is "inappropriate to claim Anglican identity for the missionary diocese."
"It is not a question of judging or misjudging the intent of the leaders of the synod who formed the missionary diocese," Dyer continued. "It is [by] placing the framework of the diocese in terms of the clear statements of the archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the canons of the Episcopal Church, and the 1989 House of Bishops resolution adopted in Philadelphia, that one is able to judge the missionary diocese as schismatic." He said that it was difficult to understand how the missionary diocese could be considered a "bridge" for people who seek to join the Anglican Communion. "I don't think that anyone joining the missionary diocese could be considered part of the Anglican Communion."
When the ESA announced the formation of a missionary diocese last November, the archbishop of Canterbury and the presiding bishop and his Council of Advice described the plan as potentially "schismatic."
"I was encouraged with the statement because it sounds more conciliatory," said Bishop A. Heath Light of Southwestern Virginia, a member of the presiding bishop's Council of Advice. However, Light said that the statement "still contradicts the canons of the Episcopal Church.... The proposal still does not ring true to me in the light of what the church has said about parallel jurisdictions."
The concern of the ESA bishops "is not combating, but a way to work together," said Wantland. "How can we stay together in the church? How can we cooperate if we continue to disagree about important issues?" Wantland asked.
Wantland contended that the ESA bishops were pressing the presiding bishop to appoint a theological study committee to facilitate mediation between bishops and congregations.
"We don't desire fragmentation of the Episcopal Church at all," Wantland said. "We are concerned with those who have left -- those who have been lost to us." However, he admitted that reaching out to them "does present anomalies and problems."
Wantland said that the ESA does not consider the dioceses or bishops of Colorado and Texas "hostile," despite the fact that the only two congregations in the missionary diocese are located in those dioceses. He admitted that if bishops of the missionary diocese make episcopal visits to those congregations without permission "that raises a problem -- one that we will have to deal with."
"We [the ESA] are trying to seek an honorable reconciliation [in Texas and Colorado] without confrontation," Wantland said.
A respected canonical authority in the Episcopal Church, Wantland admitted that he "did and does have serious canonical questions about the missionary diocese," but pointed out that he does not agree with everything in the Episcopal Church. He still opposes the ordination of women, for example.
Wantland said that the church should be open to the missionary diocese as a means to incorporate disaffected and former Episcopalians, even if it is a parallel jurisdiction. He continued to insist that the Anglican Communion has parallel jurisdictions in Europe and with ethnic minorities in New Zealand and South Africa. He said the church should consider the missionary diocese as "transitional in nature" until a "time when it is no longer necessary."