Would ECUSA even recognize a parallel jurisdiction in the U.S.?
Posted February 18, 2007
The primates aren't going to kick the Episcopal Church out of the Anglican Communion during their summit in Tanzania, press reports indicate. But some primates are reportedly lobbying for creation of a conservative "parallel jurisdiction" in the United States.
Such a proposal, which is being pitched as a way to prevent schism, could conceivably speed it up. Here's why. There's a possibility that the U.S. church would simply refuse to recognize the "parallel jurisdiction" as legitimate -- creating another international impasse which would infuriate the Global South.
At the Episcopal Church's 2006 General Convention in Columbus, the worldwide media understandably focused on B033 -- a piece of legislation which called for "restraint" in the election and consecration of bishops with controversial lifestyles. Drafters hoped B033 would help lessen tensions over the election of openly-gay bishop Gene Robinson -- and it has. Resolutions were also passed stressing the denomination's fondness for the Anglican Communion and its desire to remain a part of the international body.
But another important piece of legislation largely flew under the radar during the General Convention: B032. There was little controversy surrounding B032 and it passed with little fanfare. It states:
Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 75th General Convention affirm that no resolution of the General Convention is intended to affect either the historic separate and independent status of the churches of the Anglican Communion or the legal identity of The Episcopal Church.
Lexington Bishop Stacy Sauls, a former Delta Airlines attorney and head of the ad-hoc committee preparing the denomination's legal strategy, helped pound out the language. Bishops, even then, were pondering the possibility that the primates might try to set up a new structure in the U.S. And they passed B032 to make clear that the Episcopal Church is both separate from and independent of the 37 other sister churches that make up the Anglican Communion.
Allowing the creation of a parallel jurisdiction in the U.S. would create additional legal complications for the Episcopal Church, which is already facing several breakaway parishes in court. A new jurisdiction, if recognized by ECUSA, might make it easier for conservative dioceses to breakaway from the liberal denomination and take the property with them.
Ironically, some conservatives have been criticizing the "parallel jurisdiction" proposal because they'd prefer to see ECUSA tossed out of the Anglican Communion. But if the international church tries to interfere with the internal affairs of the separate, independent Episcopal Church -- it's entirely possible ECUSA will decide it is time to "walk apart."
Comments
Parallel jurisdiction. Is that like parallel dimensions in Star Trek? Would there be an evil Archbishop of Canterbury all dressed in black leather capes who could destroy his enemies with an alien viewscreen hidden in his wall?
The question isn't whether TEC will recognize a parallel Anglican jurisdiction. The question is whether the Anglican Communion will grant membership status to TEC after September 2007. Likely TEC will be granted status as a second tier associate, without official representation at Lambeth.
My inner Machiavellian wonders how Archbishop Akinola will fare if any of this actually happens (and I doubt that it will).
One group wants to create a second Anglican rite in the United States. That presumably putts the new church in direct communion with Canterbury.
The more radical groups want to throw the Episcopal Church out of the Anglican Communion. If that happens, there's a big geographic void in need of a church, and they step in, again presumably in direct communion with Canterbury.
Either way, no Akinola in the middle. Would non-schismatic US bishops sacrifice church unity to avoid dealing with Akinola directly? Or to keep his star from rising further?
I think it is highly unlikely that Canterbury would approve a second American Anglican church without the agreement of the Episcopal Church, which might give it, just to end the matter. Or to spite Akinola. Or both.