Defining “Alternative Episcopal Oversight”

The following is from the blog “Drell's Descants.” The author, Brad Drell, is a lawyer living in Alexandria, La., and was a lay deputy to this last General Convention.

---------------------------------------------------------------

It seems many have a hard time understanding what the [six] Dioceses are saying when they are requesting alternative primatial oversight. Quite simply, these Dioceses are requesting the ministry of a different Primate. What is the ministry of the Primate? This should have been well considered when we added the title to the office of Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. As I read our documents, the Primate of the Episcopal Church does the following things: 1.) Acts as chief pastor for the entire church, 2.) Must either preside at consecrations of new bishops or authorize another bishop to do so, and 3.) Represents the province at the Primate's meetings, the ACC meetings, and, to a lesser extent, the Lambeth Conference, with the Primate being tacitly authorized to speak for the entire Episcopal Church.

So, what do the Dioceses want when they request Alternative Primatial Oversight?

1.) A different chief pastor. To the extent the President Bishop provides this ministry, these Dioceses are asking for someone other than [Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold] and [Presiding Bishop-elect Katherine Jefferts Schori] to provide it.

2.) A different chief consecrator than the Presiding Bishop should a consecration of a new bishop need to occur in one of these Dioceses.

3.) An understanding that these Dioceses, largely as a part of the chief pastor relationship, will communicate their feelings and needs to a different Primate and will be considered to be represented by that different Primate at the aforementioned meetings. It is saying that the Primate of the Episcopal Church does not speak for these Dioceses.

Note that none of this denies that the Presiding Bishop, current or future, has the right to preside over the House of Bishops, which, previously, was the Presiding Bishop's sole function, as I understand it. It is not a repudiation of membership in the Episcopal Church or its General Convention. Many have misinterpreted these moves as leaving the church when nothing could be further from the truth.

This should not appear to be all that strange; we do allow alternative oversight, albeit in a weak from, as DEPO, and that still allows a parish to remain in the Diocese and the Episcopal Church. Seems APO ought to work as well - if we but have the generosity to grant it to our brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. Again, I hope this sets the record straight.

Your brother in Christ,

Brad Drell