The Episcopal Church as Rebellious Teenager

While cruising through the morning's news, I came across a link (h/t: Thinking Anglicans) to a piece published at the Huffington Post, and authored by none other than the Canon to the Presiding Bishop, the Rev. Canon C. K. Robertson, Ph.D. It seems that Canon Robertson is an official visitor from ECUSA to the current meeting of the General Synod of the Church of England (July 5-13). He took the occasion to remind his English hosts that the Episcopal Church (USA) is "independent but connected", as far as its relations with the Anglican Communion are concerned. He began with the official 815 Capsule Version™ of our Church's history:
The Rev. William White spent several years with the group we now know as the Founding Fathers. As chaplain to the Continental Congress, he met with them, dined with them, swapped late-night stories with them (his next-door neighbor was Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence). White's unique role gave him a front row seat to the debates of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and the rest concerning the single most important issue of the day: independence. How could a collection of British colonies live into a new reality as a united, self-governing nation? How could they maintain the best of the values they had inherited while creating a new system that would fit their context? As they deliberated, White listened ... and learned.

White was also an ordained Church of England minister. Having witnessed firsthand the birth of a new Republic, he turned his attention to the labor pains of a Church that could no longer be "of England" in name or composition, but neither could it be wholly unfamiliar. Through the Constitution that White wrote for this Episcopal Church, as it would become known, he helped create "a church government that will contain the constituent principles of the Church of England, and yet be independent of foreign jurisdiction or influence." Actually, this was no newborn he was helping along, but rather an adult child ready to strike out on its own, leaving the nest and creating a life separate from the expectations of its parent.
An "adult child"? If that phrase accurately describes the nascent Church at the end of the eighteenth century, then how, pray tell, does one account for its 21st-century regression to being a rebellious teenager? Let's face facts: the Episcopal Church (USA) has done more to snub the Anglican Communion than any other single church among its members: for references, see this post, this post, this post, and many more at this page. (In fact, the Presiding Bishop went out of her way to make the snub personal to the Church of England itself.)

The Rev. Canon Dr. Robertson continues with his history lesson for the erudition of the Brits, and draws a most inapt parallel with early church beginnings:
That parent, unsurprisingly, did not immediately embrace its child's new status. White used the term "Episcopal," the Greek term for "bishop," to describe this entity, and yet he could not convince Church of England leadership to consecrate indigenous bishops for the fledgling Church. In some ways, the situation was not that different from what was experienced by the first-century believers in Antioch, who desperately wanted the support and connection with the "mother Church," but at the same time were taking steps in their own governance and mission that reflected their geographic and ethnic context, and therefore looked quite different from what the Twelve had started in Jerusalem. Even so, while the English Church used the appointment system to propagate its ecclesiastical hierarchy, American bishops, said White, would be elected . . . and not simply by clergy, but by lay representatives as well. [Obligatory reference to ECUSA's unique polity omitted.] And in a land where there would be no king, neither would there be an archbishop. Rather, the head of this new Church would be a Presiding Bishop, reflecting the principles of the young republic in which this Church had taken root.
Frankly, I find it impossible to reconcile the good Canon's version of our Church's history with the known facts. There was no "Presiding Bishop" created by the founding documents to be "the head of this new Church", much less a lead bishop "reflecting the principles of the young republic" -- see the details about the gradual establishment of that office, and its subsequent mushrooming into its current form, in this earlier post.

Moreover, the Church of England and its bishops were emphatically not unwilling to "embrace [their] child's new status." They simply had to eliminate certain procedural hurdles, and to iron out a few doctrinal differences, before they could proceed with consecrating an American bishop, all as explained (in painstaking detail -- which I know for many readers is the bugaboo of this blog) in this post, in which there are full links to all the historical documents. There, one will learn, for example, that far from being unable to "convince Church of England leadership to consecrate indigenous bishops for the fledgling Church", the Rev. Dr. White was one of the first two American bishops to be consecrated by the then-Archbishop of Canterbury. That august official, together with the Archbishop of York, went to great lengths to accommodate the desire of the "fledgling Church" to have proper bishops to lead it, and to ensure that it was truly a church founded in the image of the Church of England, if not under its jurisdiction.

It was the Archbishops who successfully pushed the legislation through Parliament to enable them to consecrate foreigners as bishops without requiring them to subscribe to the Oath of Supremacy, by which all new ordinands acknowledged the monarch as the head of the established Church. It was the Archbishops who pored over the proposed new Book of Common Prayer for the American Church, and made numerous changes to bring it into doctrinal conformity with its English counterpart. And it was the Archbishops who specified the multiple attestations and letters of reference which they required concerning the moral and godly character of those whom they were being asked to consecrate. In the light of these facts, I would scarcely want to write, as does Canon Robertson (I have added the bold, to show you what I mean):
Through the years, misunderstandings and differences have continued. Oscar Wilde's famous maxim about two peoples separated by a common language has proven true for the Anglican Churches in these lands. It is not simply that different decisions made by one Church are often frustrating to the other. No, it is the difference in processes by which decisions are made in the respective Churches that can mystify and exasperate. Our directness can at times seem to be overly bold and unilateral, while the more nuanced ways of our transatlantic colleagues can appear heavy-handed and non-transparent. Singularly unhelpful labels such as "cowboy diplomacy" or "backroom politics" can prevent the real possibility of mutual understanding and appreciation of both Church's distinct contexts. At its worst, there can be now, as in William White's time, a refusal to see God at work in the other's polity and policies. Different does not have to mean deficient. And if we can let go of the infallibility of our opinions about our own context, perhaps we could learn from the other.
To my ear, this sounds just like the proverbial teenager talking back to her parents: the multiple "misunderstandings and differences" over the years, the "different decisions" made that are "frustrating" to each other, the unwillingness to see or appreciate how different from them she really is, and how she really, really needs her independence just now. How different ECUSA sounds now from the Church that first appealed to the Archbishops for assistance in these humble words:
Our forefathers, when they left the land of their nativity, did not leave the bosom of that Church over which your Lordships now preside; but, as well from a veneration for Episcopal government, as from an attachment to the admirable services of our Liturgy, continued in willing connection with their ecclesiastical superiors in England, and were subjected to many local inconveniences, rather than break the unity of the Church to which they belonged.

When it pleased the Supreme Ruler of the universe, that this part of the British empire should be free, sovereign, and independent, it became the most important concern of the members of our Communion to provide for its continuance. . . . [I]n accomplishing of this . . . it was nevertheless their earnest desire and resolution to retain the venerable form of Episcopal government handed down to them, as they conceive, from the time of the Apostles, and endeared to them by the remembrance of the holy Bishops of the primitive Church, of the blessed Martyrs who reformed the doctrine and worship of the Church of England, and of the many great and pious Prelates who have adorned that Church in every succeeding age. But however general the desire of compleating the Orders of our Ministry, so diffused and unconnected were the members of our Communion over this extensive country, that much time and negociation were necessary for the forming a representative body of the greater number of Episcopalians in these States; and owing to the same causes, it was not until this Convention that sufficient powers could be procured for the addressing your Lordships on this subject.

The petition which we offer to your Venerable Body is, that from a tender regard to the religious interests of thousands in this rising empire, professing the same religious principles with the Church of England, you will be pleased to confer the Episcopal character on such persons as shall be recommended by this Church in the several States here represented, full satisfaction being given of the sufficiency of the persons recommended, and of its being the intention of the general body of the Episcopalians in the said States respectively, to receive them in the quality of Bishops.
. . .

Whatever may be the event, no time will efface the remembrance of the past services of your Lordships and your predecessors. The Archbishops of Canterbury were not prevented, even by the weighty concerns of their high stations, from attending to the interests of this distant branch of the Church under their care. The Bishops of London were our Diocesans; and the uninterrupted although voluntary submission of our congregations, will remain a perpetual proof of their mild and paternal government. . . . Our hearts are penetrated with the most lively gratitude by these generous sentiments; the long succession of former benefits passes in review before us; we pray that our Church may be a lasting monument of the usefulness of so worthy a body; and that her sons may never cease to be kindly affectioned to the members of that Church, the Fathers of which have so tenderly watched over her infancy.

For your Lordships in particular, we most sincerely wish and pray, that you may long continue the ornaments of the Church of England, and at last receive the reward of the righteous from the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls.

We are, with all the respect which is due to your exalted and venerable characters and stations,

Your Lordships Most obedient and Most humble Servants,


Christ Church, Philadelphia.
October 5th, 1785.
Now that is a remarkable document for all the deputies to the new Church in America to have signed, is it not? And in case you are not following me yet, let me make the point as plain as I can.

Begin by looking at this typical allegation from a lawsuit brought by ECUSA and one of its dioceses against a parish which had the temerity to see things "differently" from them, and to vote to withdraw from the diocese (San Diego, in this case):
33. In 1973, after the geographic territory that included San Diego County became part of the newly-formed Diocese of San Diego, the mission congregation at St. John's sought permission from the Diocese to become a parish. In their application, the representatives of the prospective parish promised that St. John's Parish would be bound by and conform to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church and the Diocese.

34. In consideration for promises of subservience to the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese and the Episcopal Church, the Diocese admitted St. John's Fallbrook as a Parish at the Primary Convention of the Diocese on December 7, 1973.
When it goes into court, ECUSA always makes this argument: that by making a promise to a diocese, in the process of being admitted, that it will be forever bound by whatever canons and constitutional provisions the national Church sees fit to adopt (no matter how far into the future), every new parish becomes perpetually subordinate to it, and must adhere to its promise no matter how much it disagrees with where the Church is going.

Perhaps, however, it is time to turn the tables on ECUSA, and cite in response the promise it made solemnly to the Church of England in order to get the latter to consecrate its first bishops. Look at this passage from the letter quoted and referenced above (page 44 of the book at this link; emphasis added):
We are unanimous and explicit in assuring your Lordships, that we neither have departed, nor propose to depart from the doctrines of your Church. . . .
In sum: the Episcopal Church (USA) should expect its parishes to keep their promises only when it sets the example, by keeping its own. It claims to have made its promise when it was an adult child -- so why is it now acting like a teenager?

No comments:

Post a Comment