A Strategy for Appointing the Next Supreme Court Justice

In light of the implacable opposition exhibited by Republicans to any nominee to the Supreme Court offered by President Obama, I modestly suggest a strategy the Democrats could use to put an acceptable justice on the high court.

The plan has two parts. First, the president should nominate a currently sitting judge who is a liberal Democrat with impeccable judicial qualifications. The nominee, if such be available, should be a black, gay, young, and Protestant. An Episcopalian and a woman would be a plus.

Part 2: Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders should each pledge that, should the president’s nominee not be approved by the Senate and should the position on the court sill be open when he or she takes office, President Clinton or President Sanders, if there be such, will nominate Barack Obama to fill Scalia’s seat.

My guess is that this plan has a better than even chance of getting President Obama¹s nominee approved.

Oh, and when the next vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court, Barack Obama should be the nominee of the Democratic president. But we needn’t announce that.

Twinkling Snow

I saw a phenomenon today that I haven’t seen before. This morning was very cold, and the ground was covered by several inches of powdery snow. The sky was not cloudless, but the sun was shining brightly, low on the horizon directly in front of me. It wasn’t snowing, but a certain amount of snow was blowing in the wind. The sunshine, falling on this snow, produced a field of twinkling lights in front of me. It was magical!

I thought of grabbing my camera and trying to capture a picture of this unusual phenomenon. Alas, the twinkling lights did not last, and they didn’t come back.

After Justice Scalia

Senator Mitch McConnell issued a statement soon after the announcement of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. The statement, which offered no surprises, included this:

The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.

This, of course, is pure partisanship. The American people have had a voice by twice electing Barack Obama to the presidency.

Senator Lindsey Graham told MSNBC that, if President Obama offers a nomination, it should be a consensus candidate, not a liberal democrat. He suggested that Senator Orrin Hatch would fit the bill! Graham, like McConnell, would prefer to see the next president nominate the next justice.

Perhaps Orrin Hatch seems like a moderate to Senator Graham compared to the far-right Republican candidates vying for their party’s nomination, but, by any objective standard, Hatch is exceedingly concervative—not at all a moderate.

I believe that Obama should nominate an unreconstructed liberal to the Supreme Court forthwith. That person may not get through the Senate approval process, but that process will become an issue in the coming election. This will focus the mind of the electorate on what is at stake in this election.

If a Democrat becomes the next president, he or she will face much the same opposition as a liberal Democrat nominated by President Obama. Let’s get on with the constitutional process.

As if it were not already clear, the future direction of the United States of America will be determined in the next 12 months.

Radix-90, Order-10 PPDIs

Most readers will neither understand nor care about this post. If you’re curious, however, you can learn about pluperfect digital invariants (PPDIs) on Lionel Deimel’s Farrago here.

For those who have continued to read, I want to announce my latest discovery even before I integrate news of it into my discussion of PPDIs on my Web site.

My working hypothesis is that all bases greater than 2 have nontrivial PPDIs. Certain bases that are multiples of 18, however, seem not to have small ones. The smallest base for which this is true is 90. The smallest PPDI in this base is of order 8 and has been known for some time. That PPDI is

[73] [62] [15] [62] [83] [18] [39] [47]

There are no other radix-90, order-8 PPDIs.

I recently discovered that there is but a single radix-90, order-9 PPDI:

[13] [6] [0] [22] [69] [25] [10] [35] [65]

Unfortunately, the number of combinations of digits to be considered in the search for PPDIs rises rapidly with order. I estimated that the search for order-10 PPDIs would require considering something like 18 trillion combinations. I have finally completed that search and discovered that there are exactly two radix-90, order-10 PPDIs:

[59] [19] [25] [4] [46] [86] [55] [19] [23] [36]    (22,940,795,766,222,111,006 in base 10)

and

[77] [25] [39] [48] [77] [79] [75] [50] [2] [42]    (29,940,885,782,493,570,222 in base 10)

Thus far, all I can say about radix-90 PPDIs is that they are quite rare. Further, those radix-90 PPDIs that I have discovered do not suggest a proof that would lead to showing that every base larger than 2 contains nontrivial PPDIs. Perhaps the best approach to proving this would be a proof by contradiction (i.e., assume there is a radix with no PPDIs and show that this leads to a contradiction). I have no clue as to how to construct such a proof.

An Alternative to Reducing Taxes to Encourage Repatriation of Profits

#change date

A popular idea floating around among both Democrats and Republicans is a temporary tax reduction to allow corporations to bring profits being held overseas back into the U.S. Politicians talk of the benefits of “repatriating” corporate profits. The theory is that, although the government would, at least in theory, “lose” tax money, it would at least collect more taxes than it would otherwise.

The Guardian wrote about this idea a few months ago. Writer C. Robert Gibson likened it to catching a child stealing money from his parents and rewarding his bad behavior by letting him keep the money. I assume the analogy to reducing the corporate tax to allow repatriation is both obvious and compelling.

Incentives come in many guises. I’d like to propose a different scheme for encouraging the repatriation of corporate profits, one which doesn’t require a sacrifice by the federal government. It uses a stick, rather than a carrot.

Rather than encouraging repatriation by making it cheaper for corporations, why not make it cheaper now but more expensive later. Allow repatriation now under the existing tax regime, but raise the tax rate substantially 12 months from now. Make that increase permanent or, if not permanent, in effect for a long period—for 10 years, say. Given that corporate management has difficulty seeing beyond the next quarter, that should supply a persuasive  incentive for bringing money back into the U.S.

Why has no one proposed this? (Corporate lobbying may have something to do with it.)

Dislikability of Republican Presidential Candidates

Today, the morning after the final Republican debate before the New Hampshire primary, NPR interviewed Carly Fiorina, who had been excluded from the debate. The segment on Weekend Edition Sunday reminded me just how unpleasant I find the former HP CEO.

This realization got me thinking about ranking Republican candidates according to how likable (or not) they are. The idea seemed particularly meaningful, since one candidate, Ted Cruz, is notorious for being disliked. The more you know him, apparently, the less you like him. (See Frank Bruni’s New York Times column, “Anyone but Ted Cruz.” I’m not making this up.)

With these thoughts in mind, I’d like to propose a game: Rank the Republican hopefuls in terms of their “dislikability,” a measure of the degree to which a candidate inspires dislike. A person exhibiting a high degree of dislikability, I suggest, is even less attractive than someone who is merely unlikable. A dislikable person inspires active disgust, not merely indifference. Dislikability is independent of talent and beauty, though perhaps not of ethics.

As best as I can tell, here are the remaining Republican presidential candidates in alphabetical order:

Jeb Bush	Ben Carson	Chris Christie
Ted Cruz	Carly Fiorina	John Kasich
Marco Rubio	Donald Trump

My ranking is here. What is your ranking?

Update, 2/8/2016. Apparently, Jim Gilmore, a former governor of Virginia, is still running. Who knew?

Update, 2/12/2016. As of today, Jim Gilmore is out of the race. He hardly made a ripple in the political pond.

Who Is a Progressive?

Click for a larger image.

Political Thoughts (from the Last Election)

In 2012, I was very concerned about the presidential campaign and about issues that seemed important at the time. On the other hand, I really didn’t want to be blogging about  every day’s political news. Therefore, in September 2012, I wrote, in a post titled “A Preëmptive Political Post,”

To save myself from all that future writing, I’ve decided to develop a kind of preëmptive post simply listing themes relevant (or maybe relevant) to the presidential campaign. Each of these themes could be expanded into a standalone essay, but I leave that, at least for now, to the imagination of the reader. Other bloggers are free to write their own essays on these themes. Who knows, I might even do that myself if I get really fired up. More likely, though, I will save my efforts for campaign issues we haven’t even heard about yet.

The post, which is little more than a list of political beliefs, has attracted more visitors than anything else I have written here. No one has ever left a comment on the essay, though, and I suspect that few visitors have ever became readers. Instead, I think I created perfect click bait, a post that includes so many politically relevant words that Google often presents it as a relevant search result.

I reread my 2012 post today and was struck that most of what I wrote is still relevant, and I have no reason to repudiate anything I wrote during the last presidential election. (This is something of a depressing thought.) To the degree that anything on my list seems less relevant now than then, it at least has some value as nostalgia.

I invite (real) readers to have a look at “A Preëmptive Political Post.” I do have one additional item to add that has special relevance to the 2016 presidential campaign. I do this just before Iowans go to their caucuses:

Lack of political experience is not a qualification for high political office.

A Reflection on Bishop McConnell’s Reflection on the Meeting of the Primates

Bishop of Pittsburgh Dorsey McConnell wrote “A Reflection on the Anglican Primates’ Meeting” January 16, the day after the Anglican primates concluded their meeting in Canterbury. That meeting, of course, declared that there should be restrictions imposed on The Episcopal Church for a period of three years. (I discussed what the primates did in my essays “Abuse of Anglican Power: Where Do We Go from Here?” and “Additional Thoughts on the Meeting of the Primates.”)

Bishop: “I'm afraid you’ve got a bad egg, Mr. Jones.”
Curate: “Oh, no, my Lord, I assure you that parts of it are excellent!”

When I first read the bishop’s message to his diocese, I had a hard time deciding what to make of it. I have continued to think about it, but I still cannot say that, on the whole, I am either pleased or displeased. McConnell’s missive is something of a curate’s egg, I’m afraid.

It is good to keep in mind that the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh is still rather conservative. Liberals played a crucial role in keeping the diocese in The Episcopal Church despite then bishop Robert Duncan’s leading many congregations out of it. Enough conservative clergy and laypeople remained, however, so that the diocese, while now in the Episcopal mainstream, is nearer the conservative bank than many of us in the diocese would like. Nonetheless, it is fair to say that Bishop McConnell has kept what remains of the diocese together and now presides over a diocese no longer actively hostile to The Episcopal Church. He wrote

The primates’ decision, along with the fact that the current leader of the ACNA was invited to participate for the duration of their deliberations, has opened old wounds for many of us: for lesbian and gay members of our diocesan family and the congregations who support them; for our more conservative sisters and brothers who have remained in TEC out of their love for the Church; for all of us who have spent painful years nurturing relationships across deep disagreements in order to hold the unity of the Body of Christ.

The bishop then insists that any wounds felt in the diocese are “the wounds of Christ crucified, …, the wounds of our own selves crucified to one another and to the world.” I’m not sure I know what this piece of clergy-speak means. I think he is saying that we are enduring the consequences of taking a principled stand, and I wish that he had said something like that.

McConnell goes on to say that we—the churches of the Anglican Communion, presumably—are stuck with one another:

What makes this moment so painful is that, even as we hurl threats of separation, or lay down conditions, or demand repentance from everyone but ourselves, we know we cannot get away from one another.

I have two problem with this. First, I don’t believe The Episcopal Church needs to repent of anything regarding its adoption of same-sex marriage. The decision of the General Convention was long in coming and prayerfully considered. We knew that the decision would upset some primates, but we thought that pleasing God was more important. What, exactly, is the bishop referring to when in the phrase “everyone but ourselves”?

Then, there is the matter of Anglican churches’ relationships to one another. Many in the Communion are intent on replacing the traditional bonds of affection with bonds of obligation. But we are stuck with one another only so long as we choose to be. McConnell implies that our connection to the wider Communion is indissoluble. He writes about “the unity of the Cross”—more clergy-speak. But aren’t our bonds of affection with the Evangelical Lutheran Church, say, stronger than those with the Church of Nigeria, Anglican Communion? I see no theological reason why our relationship to Anglican churches should be any more sacred than our relationship to other Christian bodies. (Readers objecting at this point that Anglican churches are interdependent, should read my essay “Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence.”)

Bishop McConnell’s next paragraph acknowledges reality:

The world suggested by the primates’ decision appears to imagine another: a unity achieved or broken by the actions of ecclesial structures. Although I was initially encouraged by their stated desire to “walk together,” upon further reflection, it is difficult to imagine what this would look like in five or ten years. There is not the least sign that our General Convention would undo recent actions in regard to marriage, nor that the Church of Canada will change course, nor that the Churches of the Global South will in any way become more tolerant of these trends.

This is a clear acknowledgment that, certainly in three years’ time, nothing much will have changed, and the Communion will be right back where it started. But, suggests the bishop in more clergy-speak, we should carry on:

But the unity of the Cross is not something we achieve; it has been achieved for us. We need only live as if we knew it, through lives of sacrificial love even and especially toward those who believe they can do without us.

This is followed by something of a non sequitur:

The trend indicated by the primates’ actions suggests that the formal instruments of Anglican fellowship may become less important in the coming years.

This may well be true, but it surely isn’t obvious. The primates may have overplayed their hand and may be more widely recognized for the disruptive cabal that they are. Or, as seems more likely, they will have established another precedent leading to even more interference by Anglican churches in one another’s affairs. The Primates’ Meeting may be either less or more important in the future. What is certain is that Archbishop Justin Welby is willing to pander to the angry conservative element of the Anglican Communion for the sake of “unity.” In future years, he may well become known as the Neville Chamberlain of Anglicanism. God save us!

Bishop McConnell suggests, correctly, I think, that the more important aspect of the Communion is the collection of relationships between people, parishes, bishops, and dioceses across Anglican churches.

Alas, he seems to excuse the actions of the primates (and his own longstanding connections to Uganda through Pilgrim Africa) by saying that the churches of many of the primates “are beset by challenges we can scarcely imagine”—poverty, colonial oppression and post-colonial condescension, Islamic aggression, and the ravages of war. These challenges do exist, but they are no excuse for attacking The Episcopal Church as a way of distracting Africans from their local problems.

The bishop’s letter ends with this:

As we live this mission on the road, I believe that the common life we have built in this diocese will be shown as an effective and godly example for the whole Communion. Our diocesan community spans the theological breadth of Anglicanism and we hold that breadth as a treasure, not a weakness. We do so as our conscious expression of the faith once delivered to the saints and still held by us today. I trust that God will sow seeds of His reconciliation wherever our own story is told.

He almost strikes a proper tone for a 2016 Bishop of Pittsburgh, but he needs to be chided for the phrase “the faith once delivered to the saints.” This is a favorite phrase of the now disgraced Bishop Robert Duncan, who used it as shorthand for the conservative, moralistic theology that he held as the righteous alternative to the mainstream theology of The Episcopal Church.

I wrote about the phrase “faith once delivered to the saints” more than eight years ago in my blog post “The Faith Once Delivered.” Here’s how I ended that essay:

The next time you hear someone piously pontificate about “the faith once delivered to the saints,” remember that the proper response is to ask, “Yes, and what was that?” You might even cite Jude 1:19, which says about the false teachers, “It is these worldly people, devoid of the Spirit, who are causing divisions” (NRSV).

Perhaps Bishop McConnell should explain just what he meant and why he chose to use a phrase so dear to his predecessor.

LGBT, Etc.

We used to talk about gays. Then it was gays and lesbians. At some point, we switched to using abbreviations. For a long time, the most common term one encountered in print was the abbreviation LGBT—the letters were sometimes permuted—which adds bisexual and transgender people to the grouping. Not long ago, I began seeing LGBTQ. Some people claim that the Q stands for queer—I’m still not sure what that is—but others say it stands for questioning. The other day, I encountered LGBTQI. The I stands for intersex. It’s surprising that it took so long for that letter I to show up, since intersex people are the easiest variant of humanity to identify with total objectivity. But I digress.

Am I the only one who thinks this is getting ridiculous? We’re running out of letters, people.

I understand that (1) people are looking for a substantive that is concise, and (2) they don’t want to leave anybody who isn’t “normal” out. No doubt, there are people ready to add yet another letter to the standard abbreviation while arguing that they belong to a forgotten and persecuted group.

Isn’t it time to adopt a term that is once-and-for-all general and not simply an enumeration of every conceivable human variant? I suggest that we begin referring to sexual minorities. No one argues that the referents of LGBTQI constitute a majority of the population. Saying that one is part of a minority is not pejorative, it is merely descriptive. One can quibble about physical versus mental classifications—distinctions between sex and gender, perhaps—but sexual seems sufficiently generic, and sexual/gender minorities seems unnecessarily technical and verbally cumbersome. It is not, of course, as cumbersome as LGBTQI, an abbreviation with insufficient vowels to be transformed into a usable acronym.

I think that the term sexual minorities may come with political benefits. As the commonly used string of letters gets longer and longer, people who have a hard time getting past the male-female dichotomy become confused and increasingly skeptical of the implied claims. On the other hand, the U.S. has a history of expending rights to more and more groups. For many people, the idea of empowering minorities, whatever those minorities are, seems very American and just. (Admittedly, this is not true of everyone.)

The term sexual minorities thus seems euphonic, inclusive, and rhetorically powerful.

Any thoughts on the subject?

Additional Thoughts on the Meeting of the Primates

My friend Tobias Haller has written one of the more insightful descriptions of what happened in the Anglican Communion recently. Permit me to quote extensively and shamelessly from his essay “The Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politicks” (Episcopalians should get Tobias’s reference):

So what have we? On the one hand we have a body, founded in 1789 and in continuous existence since, with duly elected members called and assembled, which by its constitutional authority and in keeping with its governing law has adopted a policy which concerns no entity other than itself.

On the other hand we have a group, first assembled in 1978, meeting sporadically since, this time ’round in an irregularly convened ad hoc session; with at least one voting member improperly credentialed; having no constitutional authority whatsoever; described as recently as 2004 in The Windsor Report (¶ 104) as having until then “refused to acknowledge anything more than a consultative and advisory authority” for itself—now presuming an enhanced capacity to deem the imposition of consequences upon the aforementioned body over whom they have no authority, because of their policy change.

This must be what some people mean by “Godly order.” Seems relatively ungodly to me, and far from orderly. If this were the political realm, I’d call the latter a junta and their action an attempted coup.

(If almost none of the foregoing makes any sense to you, dear reader, you are likely not an Anglican and have no reason to continue reading.)

The Primates and the Covenant

Everything Tobias says is true; the primates had no authority to discipline The Episcopal Church. What happened in Canterbury was even more insidious than he suggests, however.

The Anglican Covenant, which has been adopted by only a few of the less prominent churches of the Anglican Communion and is widely viewed as a failed project, has been criticized mostly for its fourth section, “Our Covenanted Life Together.” Section 4.2, “The Maintenance of the Covenant and Dispute Resolution” sets out how churches can raise questions about the meaning of the Covenant  or “about the compatibility of an action by a covenanting Church with the Covenant.” The document specifies quasi-judicial procedures for resolving such issues. The diagrams below, taken from my 2010 post “Section 4 Decoded,” show the relationships and procedures specified in the Covenant for resolving questions or disputes. (Click on either diagram for a larger image.)

 

Readers may also want to review my post “If it looks like a duck…” for additional analysis of the disciplinary procedures set out in the Covenant.

I do not mean for readers to study the above diagrams. What is important to note is that (1) the Standing Committee, in consultation with other bodies, is responsible for evaluating allegations by one church against another and for suggesting “relational consequences,” (2) the Primates’ Meeting (or the primates, meeting) have no such authority, and (3) the Covenant suggests that adjudicating disputes is a careful, deliberative process, not the product of the sort of ad hoc kangaroo court that began two weeks ago.

In other words, although most Anglican churches have not adopted the Covenant, including The Episcopal Church and its accusers, the absence of the pact has led to the use of a procedure even less fair than was called for in Section 4 of the Covenant, a procedure completely lacking in formal authority, justice, or transparency.

A number of churches whose primates attended the meeting in Canterbury have adopted the Covenant—see list here. Admittedly, the church against which charges were being leveled had not adopted the Covenant, but why did none of the primates of covenanted churches suggest that procedures more like those set out in the Covenant be used in deciding what was to be done with complaints against The Episcopal Church?

Nothing was legitimate about the recent meeting. The ACNA archbishop, Foley Beach, was invited by Justin Welby as an inducement to get some of the more radical primates to attend. Beach is not and Anglican primate and may never be one, but he was even allowed to vote at the meeting—on the agenda, at any rate. (See Foley statement here.) His invitation was only the first indication that Welby was willing to do anything for some illusory “unity” within the Communion. Welby’s willingness to let the primates set the agenda—an agenda certain to be dominated by the desire to punish The Episcopal Church—was another concession. Welby was even amenable to describing the meeting as other than an instance of the Primates’ Meeting in order to allow certain primates to save face, even though, logically, that suggested that the meeting had no legitimacy at all. Welby’s introductory message made it clear that the American church was in for a rough ride.

The most distressing outcome of the meeting of the primates is that it is self-validating. If the primates can do what they did with the aid and comfort of the Archbishop of Canterbury, it must have been a valid action, one that can be a template for dealing with conflict in the future. (Just wait until the Church of England finally allows same-sex marriage!) Interestingly, Welby refused to describe the actions against The Episcopal Church “sanctions.” Instead, they are “consequences,” a term used in the Covenant.

African primates have often complained that actions of The Episcopal Church reflect poorly on their churches in the eyes of homophobic Islamists. This problem is of their own making. They always had the option of claiming plausible deniability, that they had no control over the what other Anglican churches do. They have now lost that option by exercising—or asserting to be exercising—control over The Episcopal Church. They can now be blamed for the fact that The Episcopal Church will not recant, but will only continue on the path it has followed for decades.

BBC: We Admit We’re Wrong, but So Are Others, So It’s OK

Regular readers will recall that I complained to the BBC about the use of the term “Anglican Church” where “Anglican Communion” is meant. (See “Complaint to the BBC.”) Since I submitted my complaint, I received two messages acknowledging my comment and telling me to be patient—the BBC considers all complaints thoughtfully.

Today I received the ultimate reply to my January 11 note to the BBC, which I reproduce here verbatim:

Dear Mr Deimel

Reference CAS-3655633-CH5BS0

Thanks for getting in touch regarding the use of the term ‘Anglican Church’.

We understand you feel this is incorrect usage and the BBC should refer to the ‘Anglican Communion’ instead.

We appreciate that the Anglican Communion is made up of a group of churches with links with the Archbishop of Canterbury however the term ‘Anglican Church’ is sometimes used and understood with the same meaning.

We appreciate your feedback regarding the correct usage. All complaints are sent to senior management and our programme makers every morning and we included your points in this overnight report. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and ensure your complaint is seen by the right people quickly. This helps inform their decisions about current and future reporting.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.

Kind regards

David Glenday

BBC Complaints

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.

So, the BBC admits, at the very least, that its use of “Anglican Church” is imprecise. Its defense is that others also use this formulation.

Indeed, it is true that others use “Anglican Church” to refer to the Anglican Communion. In fact, Archbishops of Canterbury—certainly the incumbent and his predecessor—have used it and, I suspect, actually know better.

Use of “Anglican Church” to mean “Anglican Communion” is not just a personal preference or dialectical variation. Instead, it represents deliberate political manipulation through misleading language intended to encourage uniformity of belief throughout the Communion.

Referring to the Anglican Communion as a church subtly suggests that the component national and regional churches, along with a few extra-provincial dioceses, should act as a unified whole, sharing common doctrine and dogma. This is the sort of mistaken thinking that motivated the primates recently to demand that The Episcopal Church be punished.

But the Anglican Communion is not a church. It has been a fellowship of churches, and, at least for the moment, is not a worldwide church.

The BBC excuses its behavior as being no different from that of others. No doubt, its “senior management” feels comfortable following the lead of Justin Welby. It’s too bad that the BBC uses this excuse to eschew objectivity in favor of spewing propaganda.

No doubt, the BBC, like many English leaders, just cannot let the Empire go.

The Rev. Diane Shepard on the Action of the Anglican Primates

Today, my friend and fellow PEP (Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh) member Diane Shepard sent the message below to the PEP e-mail list. Episcopalians in this diocese have fought valiantly for The Episcopal Church and what it stands for. We are ready to do so again.

 
January 16, 2016

Friends,

Word that the Anglican Communion primates have voted to impose sanctions on The Episcopal Church opens again the wounds from more than a decade ago when many of the primates were enraged by the consecration of a man in a gay partnership, Gene Robinson, as bishop. This Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh became the epicenter of a schism within our Episcopal Church with nationwide results. The bishop of this diocese led the schism. Many of us fought this schism both with our words, our pleas to the national leadership of our church, our money to support churches remaining loyal to the greater Episcopal Church, and in the secular civil courts. Much anger, anxiety, grief, tension between one another, and abiding outrage resulted. This word from the Anglican Communion opens those wounds again—including the huge wound of its insult to so many among us who know themselves as Christian and part of a sexual minority.

I am outraged, also, by word of these sanctions coming from our brothers and sisters in the Faith. I do not believe the answer is to leave this Anglican Communion or even to hope that it dissolves. We have an enormous role in that Communion to witness—to witness to what we know and have been shown to be true, in faith—that sexual identity or choice of a life partner does not define or limit our ability to be faithful and responsible Christian people. Our witness is of extreme importance now, as it has been, especially for those in any place or church who are being excluded from the Christian faith community or persecuted because of their sexual orientation.

How we bear this witness is an important discussion for us here in this Diocese of Pittsburgh. Our outrage is a powerful emotion. My prayer is that we can use this outrage to see more clearly the serious issues of discrimination as they poison us all and to encourage and protect those who are hurting because of that discrimination that comes in so many forms.

The Rev. Diane Shepard
Priest, Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh

Abuse of Anglican Power: Where Do We Go from Here?

One day before the official end of the current meeting of the Anglican primates at Canterbury, the result of the primates’ deliberations has been leaked. Under the circumstances, the Communion has chosen to release the primates’ statement officially. It can be found here, but it is also reproduced below. At the end of the statement, I will offer my immediate thoughts on this development.

Statement from Primates 2016

14 Jan 2016

Today the Primates agreed how they would walk together in the grace and love of Christ. This agreement acknowledges the significant distance that remains but confirms their unanimous commitment to walk together.

The Primates regret that it appears that this document has been leaked in advance of their communiqué tomorrow. In order to avoid speculation the document is being released in full. This agreement demonstrates the commitment of all the Primates to continue the life of the Communion with neither victor nor vanquished.

Questions and further comments will be responded to at a press conference tomorrow at 1500. Full details are available here.

The full text is as follows:

1. We gathered as Anglican Primates to pray and consider how we may preserve our unity in Christ given the ongoing deep differences that exist among us concerning our understanding of marriage.


2. Recent developments in The Episcopal Church with respect to a change in their Canon on marriage represent a fundamental departure from the faith and teaching held by the majority of our Provinces on the doctrine of marriage. Possible developments in other Provinces could further exacerbate this situation.


3. All of us acknowledge that these developments have caused further deep pain throughout our Communion.
   


4. The traditional doctrine of the church in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds marriage as between a man and a woman in faithful, lifelong union. The majority of those gathered reaffirm this teaching.


5. In keeping with the consistent position of previous Primates’ meetings such unilateral actions on a matter of doctrine without Catholic unity is considered by many of us as a departure from the mutual accountability and interdependence implied through being in relationship with each other in the Anglican Communion.
   


6. Such actions further impair our communion and create a deeper mistrust between us. This results in significant distance between us and places huge strains on the functioning of the Instruments of Communion and the ways in which we express our historic and ongoing relationships.
   


7. It is our unanimous desire to walk together. However given the seriousness of these matters we formally acknowledge this distance by requiring that for a period of three years The Episcopal Church no longer represent us on ecumenical and interfaith bodies, should not be appointed or elected to an internal standing committee and that while participating in the internal bodies of the Anglican Communion, they will not take part in decision making on any issues pertaining to doctrine or polity.
   


8. We have asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint a Task Group to maintain conversation among ourselves with the intention of restoration of relationship, the rebuilding of mutual trust, healing the legacy of hurt, recognising the extent of our commonality and exploring our deep differences, ensuring they are held between us in the love and grace of Christ.

A Look at the Details

Let me begin by taking the individual points at face value.

Point 1 is merely a statement of fact. It acknowledges, fairly, “ongoing deep differences that exist among us concerning our understanding of marriage.” What is immediately interesting, however, is that complaints about gay bishops have been dropped. Furthermore, as is apparent as one reads on, the Anglican Church of Canada, in which rites were approved for blessing same-sex unions even before Gene Robinson was elected Bishop Coadjutor of the Diocese of New Hampshire, has also disappeared from the primatial radar.

Point 2 is more specific as to what is upsetting some of the primates, namely the Episcopal Church’s changes regarding same-sex marriage. Again, it is fair to say that these developments “represent a fundamental departure from the faith and teaching held by the majority of our Provinces on the doctrine of marriage.” On can quibble about the adjective “fundamental,” I suppose, but the assertion is essentially true. Notice that the statement does not assert that this development is wrong.

In the next sentence, we see what the militant traditionalist primates are especially worried about: “Possible developments in other Provinces could further exacerbate this situation.” In particular, the Anglican Church of Canada will consider same-sex marriage in its General Synod this July. Other churches may follow the lead of the American church, but Canada could well be the next Anglican domino to fall. The conservatives have held out to the Anglican Church of Canada both a carrot and a stick, letting bygones be bygones, while implying that, if Canada does follow The Episcopal Church, it, too, will suffer the wrath of the Anglican reactionaries.

Point 3 is again objective, and not a statement to which Presiding Bishop Michael Curry had a pressing need to object. (Anglican have been pained, but one might quibble about our causing it. They chose to be upset, but I’ll let that pass.)

Point 4 makes explicit the traditional teaching referenced in paragraph 2. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of “[t]he majority of those gathered reaffirm this teaching.”

Likewise, I assume that point 5 is also true. It does not represent the understanding of The Episcopal Church, but probably does capture the thinking of “many of us.” It is interesting that not even a majority view is claimed here.

Beginning with point 6, things get a bit dicier, moving toward accusations, rather than simple statements of fact. It is surely true that the more conservative churches cannot trust The Episcopal Church to act as they would have the church act. On the other hand, I would argue that developments in The Episcopal Church over the last 40 years or so have moved slowly but inexorably in one particular direction. The last thing The Episcopal Church has been is surprising. Over the years, our church has been tolerant of outrageous behavior of other Anglican Churches, but we have not been accorded the same respect.

The real problem here is that there are diametrically opposed visions of the Anglican Communion among its leaders. The conservative African churches particularly want to see a doctrinally homogeneous grouping of provinces with a theology and morality consistent with their own. Ironically, they are lashing out against their heritage of colonialism by embracing the very defective theology imposed on them by their colonial masters! Also ironically, it is America, not Great Britain, that is the target of their ire.

The Episcopal Church (and its less vocal sister Western churches), despite its grave misgivings regarding the theology and morality, to say nothing of the political actions, of conservative Anglican churches, has been content to see a diverse Anglican Communion that is sometimes useful, even though those times are becoming less frequent.

Unfortunately, the statement from the primates shows no evidence of explicit agreement on the desired nature of the Anglican Communion. Conflict will continue and will likely become more intense in future years. One wonders if the general nature of the Communion was considered at all. I had thought this was the principle purpose of the meeting, but the meeting was obviously hijacked by the militants.

Point 7 gets to the real heart of this statement. We are being told that it is the “unanimous desire” of the primates “to walk together,” but this is belied by what follows. Specifically, for a period of three years—presumably so that the 2018 General Convention can come to see things as the reactionary Africans do—the primates require that:

1. The Episcopal Church not represent “us”—I assume that what is meant here is the Anglican Communion—in ecumenical and interfaith bodies.
2. The Episcopal Church—presumably what is meant here is representatives of The Episcopal Church—not be appointed or elected to Anglican Communion bodies.
3. Episcopalians—this is again an inference, as the grammar is defective—not take part in decision-making on matters of doctrine or polity when participating in Anglican bodies.

I will defer further comment on this to the next section.

Finally, in point 8, the primates note that they have asked the Archbishop of Canterbury “to appoint a Task Group” that is somehow supposed to make everything better. I have no idea how this is intended to work. Especially, I have no idea if the body will contain any Episcopalians.

Notice, in any case, that the primates have made demands of The Episcopal Church but have only make a request of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Analysis

I must begin by observing that no one has given the primates the power to make the demands they have made. The Primates’ Meeting was first established for “leisurely thought, prayer and deep consultation.” Whereas the meeting has been asked “to exercise an enhanced responsibility in offering guidance on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters” (Resolution 18 from the 1988 Lambeth Conference), it was given no actual power. Moreover, traditionally, Lambeth Conference resolutions are likewise only advisory, so the bishops gathered at Lambeth had no power to bestow.

The action of the primates in 2016 is nothing more than a power grab, an abuse of the primates’ respective offices. We might have expected Justin Welby to be the adult in the room, but it quickly became apparent from his obsequious and pandering opening message that the notion of a “looser” grouping of Communion churches was being jettisoned in favor of keeping the conservatives happy and dumping on the long-suffering Episcopalians. (I have often claimed that Anglicans suffer from pathological niceness. Clearly, some Anglicans have conquered that fault.)

I believe that all the demands of the primates are illegitimate, as they are beyond their remit (as the British would say). Putting that aside for the moment, I will say a few things about those demands.

Keeping Episcopalians off ecumenical and interfaith groups has a certain logic to it, as The Episcopal Church is, in a sense, not representative of the Anglican Communion. At least, this makes sense from the world view of the militant traditionalists. From an Episcopal Church perspective, the Anglican Communion is (or should be) a diverse body, and representing it to the outside world as one embracing a single body of doctrine and practice is a misrepresentation.

There is some ambiguity in point 7. On first reading, it seems that Episcopalians are not to be added to the various Communion bodies, but Episcopalians already on such bodies are not to be cashiered. On the other hand, they cannot participate in discussion of doctrine or (presumably, Anglican Communion) polity. Does this mean that an Episcopalian whose term on an Anglican body has expired cannot be replaced? It probably does, so the voice of Episcopalians will gradually be diminished over the three-year sentence the primates intend to impose.

The insincerity here is monumental. The primates want to “walk together,” but, since their minds are made up—after all, they know the will of God, who, seemingly, forgot to explain it to Episcopalians—they really don’t want to hear anything from The Episcopal Church. I suspect that the GAFCON primates would just as soon have ejected The Episcopal Church from the Communion. No doubt, cooler heads (and readers of the Anglican Communion balance sheet) prevailed.

I have no hope for the proposed Task Group. There is no indication that the conservative primates are going to change their minds about same-sex marriage in the next three years, and neither are the Presiding Bishop or the General Convention of The Episcopal Church. Serving on the Task Group is a fool’s errand. The project is doomed, as perhaps is the Anglican Communion.

I am eagerly awaiting the final communiqué from the meeting, assuming that there is one. I had hoped that Michael Curry would not lend his name in any form to an action penalizing his church. If he does not repudiate the statement currently before the world, however, it appears that he has and that he has failed his first major test as a champion of The Episcopal Church.

Episcopal News Service has published a story in which the presiding bishop expresses the pain that the sanctions of the primates will cause Episcopalians. This is all well and good, but what is needed is his repudiation of the actions of the primates as abusive and unnecessary. According to ENS, “Curry told the primates that he was in no sense comparing his own pain to theirs.” Actually, I suspect that Episcopalians have felt considerably more pain from the actions of the Anglican Communion and the American allies of the Africans who have stolen property and souls from the church than the ordinary Nigerian or Ugandan or Rwandan Anglican. Pittsburghers could say a lot about their pain.

What Do We Do Now?

As I said, I am eagerly awaiting the concluding scenes of the revolting drama being played out in Canterbury. I reserve the right to change my mind, but I will offer a few thoughts. (I’m giving up, at least for the moment, trying to read all the commentary and news reports from Canterbury.)

I believe that The Episcopal Church should make it clear that we believe the primates had no right to do what they have done. Executive Council should make a statement to this effect. Moreover, it should reconsider funds set aside to support the infrastructure of the Anglican Communion. Executive Council should reconsider our relationships to churches of primates who voted to sanction The Episcopal Church.

Although we cannot compel the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint Episcopalians, Episcopalians on Anglican bodies should continue to serve (or attempt to continue to serve). They should insist on participating in all discussions and decision-making. We should appoint successors to Episcopalians whose tenure on Anglican bodies is expiring.

No doubt, many will advise that we meekly accept the punishment meted out by the primates, arguing that it would be the Christ-like thing to do. I strongly disagree. If we truly believe that our LGBT brothers and sisters are equally children of God and deserve to be full members of Christ’s body, we should avoid selling them down the river yet again. Our actions can not only affect our own church, but also the Canadian and other churches that have not yet fully embraced all people, no mater what their sexual and gender identities.

I have little hope for an Anglican Communion led as it is by an archbishop who takes pride in his church’s success in, for example, preserving its permission to discriminate against gay couples. In three years, the Anglican Communion is likely to be pretty much where it is now, and the hostility of the militant traditionalists will continue. (See the statement from GAFCON on the meeting.)

Justin Welby’s intention to reduce tensions by building a looser Communion has been abandoned for lockstep orthodoxy. I believe the future of authentic Anglicanism will lie with an American Anglican Communion. The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans will be free to make its own way in the world.

A Final Note

There was good news and bad news from Canterbury concerning the Anglican Church in North America. The good news is that there was no move to integrate ACNA—other, that is, than as a puppet master of third-world Anglican churches—into the Anglican Communion. The bad news is that Archbishop Foley Beach fully participated in the meeting, possibly except in the voting. It seems only a matter of time before ACNA becomes part of the Communion. If and when that happens, I believe we cannot continue to be members of Justin Welby’s happy band.

Complaint to the BBC

The BBC rather consistently uses the term “Anglican Church” when what is meant is the Anglican Communion. This has bothered me for a long time. Today, Anglican Ink published a transcript of a BBC Radio 4 interview with Justin Welby from this morning. The interviewer used the term “Anglican Church,” and I decided it was time to lodge a formal complaint. I submitted the note below on the BBC Web site. (It was a rather tedious process, by the way.) I have transcribed my complaint verbatim, except that I have substituted italics for all caps. (The BBC site apparently does not understand HTML tags.) I am awaiting a reply.

The BBC consistently uses the term “Anglican Church” to refer (presumably) to the Anglican Communion. I encountered this usage recently on “World News” and in the December 11 BBC Radio 4 interview of Justin Welby.

In fact, there is no “Anglican Church.” The Anglican Communion, on the other hand, is a Fellowship of autonomous churches of varying polity and using diverse liturgies. After this week, of course, it may not even be that.

In any case, use of the term “Anglican Church” when what is meant is “Anglican Communion” is incorrect, misleading, and prejudicial. There are Anglicans within the Communion who would like there to be a worldwide Anglican church espousing consistent, reactionary doctrine beyond the influence of modern society. I doubt that the BBC means to promote that view of the Communion. I would hope that the BBC would strive for greater precision and objectivity.

The term “Anglican Church” might be appropriate when referring to a particular national or regional church, such as the Church of England. Even in that context, however, the usage can be misleading.

I hope that the BBC will drop the use of “Anglican Church” and use “Anglican Communion” when the fellowship of national and regional Anglican churches is intended.

Update, 1/26/2016. I received a reply from the BBC. You can read it here.

Showdown at Theological Gap

All things being equal, tomorrow, January 11, 2016, the 38 primates of the Anglican Communion will meet at Lambeth Palace to consider various matters of concern. A variety of issues may be discussed, but the only one likely to figure in future histories of Anglicanism is the nature of the Communion itself and the relationships among its member churches.

I have already written about the upcoming meeting—see “Anglican Communion II?,” “Justin Welby on the Hot Seat,” “Parallel Anglican Universes?,” and “A Letter to Michael Curry”—and I see no reason to retract anything I have already put into print. There have been too many statements and commentaries appearing since my last post, however, to try either to summarize, reply to, or even cite, but I do want to offer a few last-minute thoughts.

 When I first heard the announcement of the meeting, I thought it odd. Why would Justin Welby risk his reputation on such a high-risk enterprise? There may be a certain bit of hubris involved, but I think that the Archbishop of Canterbury, having personally visited all the churches of the Communion, concluded that his chances of bringing any semblance of peace to the Anglican world were not going to get any better in the future. Perhaps it was time to go all in. That may have been a rational decision, but Welby appears to be rather more sanguine than he has any right to be.

A number of GAFCON primates are threatening to walk out of the meeting—perhaps even out of the Communion itself—if they get no satisfaction of their demands that The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada be either disciplined or ejected from the Communion for their departures from “biblical orthodoxy.” That, of course, is not going to happen. The primates of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada will offer no substantive apology for their churches’ actions regarding women, homosexuals, or the transgendered. They neither will nor can undo what their churches have done. Michael Curry and Fred Hiltz can do little more than say “we’re sorry you feel that way.”

Tomorrow’s meeting is really a showdown at Theological Gap. In all too many cases, the theological differences between Western and Global South churches are simply too great to bridge. If Anglican unity requires that that gap be eliminated—I believe it should not—then the Communion will fall apart.

This showdown, though long in coming, was inevitable. It became so at the 1998 Lambeth Conference when, under the leadership of George Carey (or the lack thereof), Resolution I.10 was passed, thereby giving militant traditionalists a potent weapon to use against what had been mainstream Anglicanism. The forces of reaction have promoted I.10 as the unassailable “teaching” of the Communion. The resolution became an explicit assumption of the Windsor Report and of the ill-considered Anglican Covenant that followed. Those angry reactionaries are now moving in for the kill, but they have overplayed their hand, if only because the Primates’ Meeting has no real power to do anything. If Western Anglicans are not to be abandoned by their leaders, it is time for Western primates to declare that Resolution I.10 was a mistake in 1998 and is doubly damnable in 2016.

If the GAFCON crew fails to get its way, as indeed it cannot, how can the most militant of the Global South primates not leave the meeting? It is difficult to see how they can possibly save face if they stay to the bitter end, and it is even more difficult to imagine a compromise that would not be interpreted as a defeat at the Armageddon they have arranged.

It is not clear what plans Justin Welby has for the meeting. He has not tipped his hand, and we know that he is holding at least one wild card, namely, the status of the Anglican Church in North America. Inviting the ACNA’s Archbishop Foley Beach to the meeting, even under ambiguous circumstances, was clearly a move intended to induce attendance of skeptical primates. A promise to integrate the upstart North American church into the Communion would clearly be a partial victory for the reactionaries and, alas, would probably not prompt Curry or Hiltz to threaten the departure of their churches from the Communion. Playing that card might, however tenuously, hold the Communion together in the very short run, though perhaps at a high price. If the centuries-old rule of non-overlapping jurisdictions is to be abandoned by the Communion, interesting possibilities will become available. Surely an Episcopal Church in England would be welcomed by same-sex couples seeking a church wedding!

I really have no idea how this meeting will end, though I doubt it can possibly end well. The best possible outcome may well be a formal split of the Communion into two disjoint groupings.

If you have nothing better to do, pray for a miracle.

Donald Trump is Mean

Click for larger image

Source of quotation:
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2016/01/07/trump-campaign-lumbers-into-vermont/78375274/

George Bush Didn’t Keep Us Safe

I have been watching the Showtime documentary “The Spymasters: CIA in the Crosshairs,” in which all 12 living CIA directors and others operatives are interviewed. I was struck by the brief segment below in which George W. Bush’s briefer on September 11, 2001, admits that the Bush administration did not keep the country safe. The documentary also illustrates how President Bush was warned by the CIA in the strongest terms that an attack was coming. The administration essentially did nothing.

Fresh Air ran an excellent segment on “The Spymasters.” You can find it here.

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush has continued to insist that his brother kept the country safe. Draw your own conclusions.

A Letter to Michael Curry

I wrote the letter below to the new presiding bishop last month out of concern for what might happen at the Primates’ Meeting in January. When I first heard that the Archbishop of Canterbury had called the meeting, my anxiety spiked. Would the meeting result in a looser, more irenic Communion, or would it re-ignite long-simmering conflicts? Would the meeting, in fact, begin the dismantling of the Communion?

The Anglican Covenent has widely been considered at a dead end. Unfortunately, no one in authority has acknowledged its failure, and zombie-like, the ill-conceived pact repeatedly seems to rise from the dead.

I decided to publish this letter after reading a post by Mark Harris responding to a rather incoherent essay from The Living Church promoting “Primatial option for the Covenant,” whatever that is, at next month’s gathering. Clearly, the Covenant still has its die-hard supporters.

It is time for The Episcopal Church to stand up for itself and reject the bullying of Global South primates. Presiding Bishop Michael Curry is about to undergo an early trial by fire. I pray that he is keenly aware that, in large measure, he will not be among friends.

November 23, 2015

The Most Rev. Michael Curry
815 Second Avenue
New York, NY 10017

Dear Presiding Bishop Michael Curry:

Greetings from the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, a diocese that has suffered the depredations of schismatic Episcopalians and their allies in the wider Anglican Communion, particularly in the Global South.

I am writing out of concern for the possible outcome of the January Primates’ Meeting called by the Archbishop of Canterbury. I write as someone who labored to thwart the ambitions of Bishop Robert Duncan—I was the first president of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh—and as the founder of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition, which has worked to prevent attempts to impose a uniform “orthodoxy” throughout the Anglican Communion.

I cannot speak for all Episcopalians, but I do speak for many who love The Episcopal Church yet have seen it assaulted both from within and without for taking stands of which we believe Jesus would approve.

It would appear that the upcoming Primates’ Meeting will bring together bishops of widely divergent views. Archbishop Welby seeks to calm the troubled waters of the Communion through a degree of disengagement. On the other hand, some primates, particularly those associated with GAFCON, are continuing to demand that The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada renounce their departures from “orthodox Anglicanism” and commit themselves to “biblical Christianity.”

I have no doubt that you will defend our church against those who would transform it into yet another intolerant and self-righteous Protestant denomination, but I urge you to be more conspicuous in your defense of The Episcopal Church, if not more resolute, than your two predecessors.

In particular, I ask you to dissociate yourself and our church publicly from any communiqué emerging from the meeting if you disagree with its contents. You are, after all, a representative of The Episcopal Church, not of the Anglican primates. The Primates’ Meeting is not—must not be—the board of directors of the Anglican Communion.

The genius of Anglicanism is in part its willingness to depart from received tradition in order to minister meaningfully to God’s people in particular places. If that is unacceptable to a majority of the primates, it is the Communion (or our relation to it), not The Episcopal Church, that must change. If militant traditionalists are determined to remake the Communion in their image, we must disengage from it, both operationally and financially. We can continue to pursue common ministry with those Anglican churches willing to tolerate our differences.

Know that you will be in my prayers in the coming days. I hope that you can help to ameliorate the current dysfunction of the Anglican Communion. If that goal is unattainable, we should reaffirm our right, willingness, and need to follow what we believe is the path demanded by our Lord and Savior.

Yours in Christ,

[signed]

Lionel E. Deimel, Ph.D.


Update, 2/3/2016. I received a letter from Presiding Bishop Michael Curry a couple of days ago. It provided no insight into his thinking in the aftermath of the meeting of the primates beyond that which I already had from his public statements. I was pleased to receive a response to my letter, however. Not every bishop to whom I have written has been polite enough to reply.

How Important Is the Diocese?

Bob Duncan, the bishop of ACNA’s Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh, recently sent out a fund-raising letter.  (A PDF version of the letter is here.) The appeal carried the title “Bishop’s Extra-Mile Appeal in Support of Congregational Mission.” The appeal suggests, as have other indicators, that the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh continues to be under-funded.

As a fund-raising appeal, the heart of the letter is in these two paragraphs:

Every believer is called upon to tithe, to give away at least ten per cent of what we have to the work of God, chiefly through the local parish. Many of us go beyond the tithe. Many of us go the extra mile.

This year, my last as your Diocesan Bishop, I am asking you once again to consider an extra mile gift. Let's do something memorable!

What I was particularly struck by, however, by an earlier paragraph:

We are part of a great diocese with a great mission. We do our mission chiefly through the agency of our congregations. Congregations are primary, the diocese is secondary. The diocese exists to make its congregations strong, and to connect them with one another and with the Global Church.

The militant traditionalists of (or recently of) The Episcopal Church have played fast and loose regarding the importance of dioceses. When then bishop Duncan was urging the churches of the diocese to vote to leave The Episcopal Church, he repeatedly asserted that nothing would change; congregations would merely dissociate themselves from the heretical wider church. To reassure them—disingenuously, I might add—that they would be able to keep their property, he told the people that the diocese, detached from The Episcopal Church, would make no claim on their property such as that asserted by the Dennis Canon.

On the other hand, conservative bishops had earlier latched on to the notion promoted by former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams that the diocese is the fundamental unit of the church. James F. Turrell called this notion dangerous, idiosyncratic, and profoundly ahistorical. The archbishop seemed to be looking for buy-in for the Anglican Covenant wherever he could find it—why not from dioceses if The Episcopal Church would not accept it?—but the effect went beyond what was intended. Some bishops did talk of having dioceses adopt the Covenant, but Williams’ ill-considered ideas also provided justification for dioceses leaving The Episcopal Church.

The reality, I’m afraid, is that Duncan and his ilk will make whatever argument serves their purposes. When a strong diocese advances their cause, the diocese will be emphasized. When congregational autonomy does so, diocesan leaders become congregationalists.