- Despite arguments to the contrary, TEC’s Constitution places neither the General Convention nor the Office of the Presiding Bishop in a hierarchical relation to its various Dioceses.
- Consequently, the various Dioceses have a right (sadly now being exercised by some) to withdraw from TEC and its General Convention.
Turner then goes on to rehash the situations in San Joaquin and Pittsburgh. In both cases asserting the case of people who don't want anything to do with TEC. His final conclusion is that the only way out of this is a covenant.
In respect to the present conflicts within TEC these four conclusions are of major significance, but Mark McCall points to others that suggest further complexities.
(a) As far as TEC’s Constitution is concerned, a Diocese is permitted to organize itself as it sees fit. It could be strongly hierarchical or it could be strongly congregational.
(b) A Diocese is not required to maintain sacramental communion with the other Dioceses of TEC or (since the Presiding Bishop has no See) with its Presiding Bishop.
(c) There is no prohibition of a Diocese entering into communion with a body that is not in communion with TEC.
(d) There is not even a requirement that the several Dioceses have a Bishop who is a member of TEC. For that matter there is no requirement that a Diocese have any Bishop at all. A Diocese is within its rights to be run by its Standing Committee as the ecclesiastical authority. The Standing Committee might then invite a non-TEC Bishop to perform necessary Episcopal actions.
The answer to these questions contained in the proposal before the Communion and before TEC is through a Covenant whereby each subjects itself to the others in a fellowship of both truth and love. Is this not in fact a more excellent way than the sovereign assertion of authority and autonomy on the one hand or a reactive attempt to separate from erring brothers and sisters on the other? I believe it is. I believe also that, though it will prove a way of suffering, it is a way that will lead to the development of mechanisms for the preservation of communal order in a way that the creation of new Provinces (on both the left and the right) does not.
How about people follow the constitution and canons until they leave and when they leave, they leave the assets of TEC behind if they are no longer a part of TEC.
Bishop Whalon writes well on the problems with Turner's posting. http://bishopblogging.org/
He correctly states that the constitution and canons assume a state of trust as its base that is not codified. This state of trust is exactly what has been violated by the renegades.