Bishop Robert Duncan has responded to the statement in the posting just below this one. He takes particular issue with the claim of the non-Network churches in his dioces that in attempting to place itself outside of Province III of the Episcopal Church, the diocese has effectively placed itself outside of the Church altogether. A press release states:
“Responding to claims made at the press conference that the specific standing committee action to give notice of an intent to disaffiliate from Province III of ECUSA’s internal provincial structure (providing the diocesan convention approves this November) signified an attempt to ‘leave’ the Episcopal Church, Bishop Duncan stressed that it is nothing of the sort. In fact, the action is governed by the Episcopal Church’s constitution. ‘Article VII of the Constitution of the Episcopal Church guarantees that no diocese will be included in a province of the Episcopal Church ‘without its own consent.’ The specific history of the application of this article includes a diocese (Missouri, 1964 – 1977) withdrawing its consent and being treated as extra-provincial during multiple meetings of General Convention before finally being re-included in a different province. The precedent and history unequivocally support the Standing Committee’s considered action,’ said Bishop Duncan.
Not so fast, says Joan Gunderson of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh in a paper you can find here.
Fact: Article VII of the Constitution of The Episcopal Church does require that a diocese agree to its placement in a particular province. Pittsburgh did agree to being in Province III. The canons of The Episcopal Church specify the assignment of each diocese to a province. There is no provision for withdrawing from a province, only for transferring to another existing province. Missouri was originally in Province VII, which includes most of the Southwest. In the 1960s, Missouri decided that it had little in common with dioceses in that geographical area and would fit better in a more Midwestern region. It stopped participating but did not try to withdraw formally from Province VII. This situation helped encourage General Convention to pass a canonical change specifying a means by which a diocese could transfer to another province. Missouri then followed the specified procedure to transfer to Province V, which includes much of the Midwest.
Joan’s colleague Lionel Deimel has written an analysis of the diocese’s decision to attempt to remove itself from Province III.