A group calling itself Lay Episcopalians for the Anglican Communion (LEAC) appears to be laying the procedural groundwork to disrupt the upcoming General Convention. The group is evidently working to force the House of Bishops to vote on a statement disapproving the ordination of gay clergy, thus clearing the way for the "indictment" of those who participated in the Gene Robinson consecration in 2003. (Hat tip: Thinking Anglicans.)
The group has announced a petition drive, and says it is seeking ten or more qualified bishops to bring a presentment — in essence, an indictment under church law — against New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson and the 35 other bishops who participated in consecrating him. The group’s stated goal is to seek "official judicial determination in America of the validity of the Scriptural and canonical rules we have always lived by," according to its press release.
Petition drives often amount to nothing more than entertainment for the inept. But this one might be different.
My hunch — or maybe it’s just a hope — is that LEAC has badly misjudged the bishops. Even so, their presentment drive could stir up a lot of trouble.
FIRST, SOME BACKGROUND:
1. LEAC appears to be a fairly new group; there’s not much information to be had about them. Information on its Web site indicates that it has something to do with All Saints’ Church in Chevy Chase, Maryland. It purports to be composed entirely of lay people.
2. LEAC’s public debut took the form of a controversial survey of bishops. According to the LEAC press release, the survey results purportedly indicate that "56.25% of respondents now would disapprove of the 2003 General Convention resolution which led to consecration of Bishop V. Gene Robinson, and 57.5% would oppose provisions for church blessing of same-sex domestic partnerships …."
3. LEAC’s presentment drive presumably would proceed under Canon IV.3.21. That canon sets out the procedural requirements for presentments against bishops "for holding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, any doctrine contrary to that held by this Church," and for "any other Offenses arising out of acts alleged to be contrary" to the relevant church doctrine(s).
Under that canon, before a presentment could be made, ten bishops with jurisdiction would first have to sign a request that the House of Bishops adopt a Statement of Disassociation ("SoD request") with the offending doctrine. Retired bishops wouldn’t count toward the necessary ten signatures; neither would coadjutors, sufferagans, assisting bishops, etc.
NOW LET’S LOOK AT how the first steps in the presentment minuet would play out. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that LEAC can get the necessary
ten bishops with jurisdiction to sign the SoD request.
• The Presiding Bishop sets the time, within three months after the SoD request is filed (plus another two months if he wants), for the accused bishop to file a responsive brief. The Sod request and the responsive brief, if any, are disseminated to the House of Bishops.
• The entire House of Bishops must then take up the SoD request at its next regularly scheduled meeting occurring at least one month after the SoD request and responsive brief are disseminated. In theory, that could be as early as the HoB meeting at the General Convention, but that would assume that the Presiding Bishop allowed less than a month for all 36 accused bishops to file their responsive briefs; I can’t see the incumbent PB doing so.
• At the meeting, all bishops will be eligible to vote, not just those with jurisdiction. Remember that LEAC’s survey purportedly indicated that a majority of bishops would not vote to approve Gene Robinson’s consecration today. LEAC is presumably counting on that to get them over the top on a Statement of Disassociation.
• If the House of Bishops were to adopt the SoD, it would clear the way for ten bishops with jurisdiction to sign a presentment, which in turn would trigger an ecclesiastical trial.
• On the other hand, if the House of Bishops were to fail to adopt the requested SoD, then I think we could expect the separationist wing of the church to try to leverage that failure to advance its agenda, both with the so-called Global South and with the U.S. courts.
MY HUNCH IS that LEAC has misjudged the bishops. It’s one thing for a bishop to respond, in a blind, confidential survey, that s/he would have voted differently today than in 2003. It would be another thing entirely for a bishop to vote, in effect, to betray 36 of his or her colleagues.
And a betrayal is exactly what it would be, if the House of Bishops were to vote to permit presentments against 36 of their number, for participating in an episcopal consecration that the House voted three years ago to approve in the first place.
Leave a Reply