Friday, August 25, 2006

Fun Facts to Know and Tell About ALPO*

"ALPO ... it's not just for dog food anymore!"

Many thanks to Kim Byham (Diocese of Newark) who offered this helpful, clarifying, thorough overview of everything you always wanted to know about *Alternative Primatial Oversight but didn't know to ask!

Thanks, Kim! You're the best ...

What is Alternative Primatial Oversight?

Alternative Primatial Oversight (ALPO) is a term invented by members ofthe Anglican Communion Network to provide a mechanism for them to leave the Episcopal Church. The Dioceses of Fort Worth, San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, South Carolina, Central Florida, and Springfield have requested it. The Diocese of Dallas has appealed to the Archbishop ofCanterbury for a direct primatial relationship with him.

Are there any precedents for ALPO?

While the term is new, the concept of dioceses leaving the EpiscopalChurch is not. Three new provinces of the Anglican Communion have beenformed in recent years out of dioceses of the Episcopal Church: theEpiscopal Church in the Philippines, la Iglesia Anglicana de Mexico, andla Iglesia Anglicana de la Region Central de America. More relevant, however, are the three individual dioceses which have left the EpiscopalChurch since 1967: Cuba, Puerto Rico and Liberia. Liberia is thesimplest case - it joined the Church of the Province of West Africa, inwhich it was geographically located, in 1980. Puerto Rico (now back inthe Episcopal Church) and Cuba (which considered but rejected rejoiningin 2003) are more likely precedents for ALPO.

During its sojourn out ofthe Episcopal Church (1979-2003), Puerto Rico was "extra-provincial."This was often described as "extra-provincial to Province IX" of theEpiscopal Church, but this was misleading and implied it was part of theEpiscopal Church but not directly related to any of its provinces. Indeed, it was not part of the Episcopal Church during that period, butit still had primatial oversight by the Presiding Bishop who delegated oversight to Province IX. Cuba since 1967 has a more complicated version of primatial oversight consisting of a Metropolitan Council (acouncil that serves the role of a primate) consisting of the primates ofthe West Indies, Canada, and the Episcopal Church (again delegated toProvince IX).

As was the case for Puerto Rico, when Cuba receivedalternative primatial oversight, it ceased to be part of the EpiscopalChurch. It is important to note that in all the cases sighted above, the dioceses leaving the Episcopal Church were given permission to do so by the General Convention.

Why was ALPO requested?

This is the key question. Had the seven dioceses simply stated their intention to leave the Episcopal Church, the Presiding Bishop would have declared the sees vacant and appointed interim bishops to preside in those dioceses. Similarly, the congregations and individuals remaining committed to the Episcopal Church would have met to elect a new Standing Committee and other officers and set up processes for electing new bishops.

Instead, by asking for ALPO, the seven dioceses have frozen the ground on which they sit. The Presiding Bishop cannot declare the sees vacant nor can the loyal Episcopalians meet to elect new representatives.The Canons of the Episcopal Church make explicit what has long beenCatholic tradition: "It is hereby declared as the judgment of this Church that no two Bishops of Churches in communion with each other should exercise jurisdiction in the same place; except as may be defined by a concordat adopted jointly by the competent authority of each of the said Churches, after consultation with the appropriate inter-Anglicanbody." [Canon 11, Section 4]

While this is being ignored even as I write by the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), it is not something that the Episcopal Church would violate by sending in new bishops for the ALPO dioceses. They know that and, while encouraging others to ignore our canons and Lambeth resolutions to the same effect, they will use Episcopal Church canons to protect their own diocesan offices andproperty.

Is ALPO similar to DEPO? [Delegated Episcopal Oversight]

The only similarity between ALPO and DEPO is the word "oversight." DEPO contains two words that make it wholly different from ALPO: "Delegated,"which implies that there is an entity with superior jurisdiction which is delegating and can withdraw such delegation; and "Pastoral," which implies that such oversight is limited to pastoral issues. In seeking direct primatial oversight from the Archbishop of Canterbury, theDiocese of Dallas stated that it would be for "mission, pastoral supportand accountability," implying that unlike a parish under DEPO which remains part of its diocese, the Diocese of Dallas sees ALPO as meaning it would no longer be accountable to the Presiding Bishop and Primate of the Episcopal Church and presumably to the Constitution and Canons ofour Church.

Can it be granted without approval of General Convention?

No, it would be wholly unprecedented and presumptively null and void.

Can the ABC grant ALPO?

The dioceses requesting ALPO have applied to both the Archbishop of Canterbury and to the Primates Meeting (two of the "Instruments of Communion"). Neither would have the right to unilaterally assign dioceses of the Episcopal Church to other provinces - or create a new one -without the consent of the Episcopal Church.

It appears, however, that those requesting ALPO are hoping that the Archbishop of Canterbury and/or the Primates Meeting will ostensibly grant them ALPO notwithstanding the lack of authorization by GeneralConvention and that will give them cover that they can use in court andin the court of public opinion to retain their property.

Are they asking to be in another province?

Yes. Although a bit late in this discussion, please be careful not to confuse a province of the Episcopal Church (of which there are nine) anda province of the Anglican Communion (of which there are 38). ALPO calls for the latter, not the former. Do not be fooled by the word "oversight." As indicated above, these dioceses seek to be accountable to a primate other than the Presiding Bishop and presumptively to no longer be responsible for upholding the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.

What are the downsides to ALPO for those seeking it?

I suspect they are legion and I welcome additional thoughts. One that comes to mind is that if these dioceses manage to create a lifeboat for themselves so they can keep their property - and even that of the loyal parishes in their dioceses - they may undercut the arguments of dissenting parishes in non-ALPO dioceses, particularly in states wherethey are located.


Lisa Fox said...

Thanks very much for the history lesson, Kim (and Susan!). I had no idea about the related precedents.

Unknown said...

"ALPO?" Does this mean that TEC has gone to the dogs?


babyblue ... ummm ... didn't our Lord finally come around to the idea that even the dogs were entitled to the crumbs under the table? And who helped him come to that conclusion ... oh yeah, the woman with great faith whose manner of life made her "unclean" to the orthodox of her day. Interesting connection ... it'll even preach!

Hiram said...

Two things:

1) Did the Syro-Phoenecian woman continue to worship idols after Jesus healed her daughter? Scripture does not say -- but in similar stories in Acts, the Gentile converts abandoned their idols and worshiped the Triune God, and gave up their various pagan customs (not always well or easily, to be sure -- but they did "turn fromt their wicked ways and live").

Christ invites all without reservation, but he bids all to repent and believe.

2) This appears to be a good analysis of Alternative Primatial Oversight, on the whole. I do not know all that the eight dioceses asked for, so I can't say for sure -- but I do not think that they were asking to leave the Episcopal Church or to leave its canons. They simply do not believe that Bp Jefferts Schori can be relied upon for spiritual leadership. Her first public talks after the election gave no indication that she is at all sensitive to the convictions of conservative Episcopalians or has any desire to see them included in any meaningful way in the life of the Episcopal Church.

How can you trust someone who seems to be glad to put her thumb in your eye from the very start? PB Griswold at least paid lip service to theological diversity; Bp Jefferts Schori does not even do that.

It was said, in 2003, that "God is doing a new thing." If God can break his own Word, as you all claim, what are a few customs and canons, all made by fallible human beings? Why not grant APO to those who request it?