Historian Robert Prichard of Virginia Theological Seminary described General Convention’s call, in the early 20th century, for more business-like models of management, which led to organizing dioceses into provinces; changing the Presiding Bishop from the longest-serving bishop to an elected executive; and establishing a national council, now known as Executive Council.
Dr. Prichard noted that The Living Church was the first publication, in response to those changes, to apply the courtesy title “the Most Rev.,” normally reserved for archbishops, to the Presiding Bishop.
The 20th century also led to greater ties with the Anglican Communion, Dr. Prichard said, including the appointment of the Rt. Rev. Stephen Bayne as the first executive officer of what is now the Anglican Communion Office.
The Episcopal Church’s two major trends of the 20th century ”” greater centralization and stronger ties with the Anglican Communion ”” are now at odds with each other, Dr. Prichard said.
I knew the [b]Right[/b] Rev’d John E. Hines when he was Presiding Bishop (1965-74) and afterwards until his death in 1997 (52 years after his consecration as Coadjutor Bishop of Texas). Bp. Hines was always adamant that he was not an Archbishop and did not deserve the title Most Rev’d.
Ironically, it was the perceived need for parity with the other Primates in the Communion that led to the title change in America. Once later PBs began using the title of a Metropolitan, they almost inevitably began acting as if they had metropolitical jurisdiction over the diocesan bishops. The Primate of Nigeria (like many other Anglican Primates) really does have those powers, and successive PBs apparently envied him and tried to emulate his example.
I will note that the tendency towards centralized power has not just affected the relations between the PB and diocesan bishops, but also the relations between dioceses and parishes. When Bp. Hines was presiding as first among equals in the House of Bishops, the other members were essentially presiding as first among equals in their respective diocesan conventions, convocations, and councils. Back then, no diocesan bishop in his right mind would ever have suggested, as the Bishop of South Carolina did this week, that he was “sovereign” in his diocese. The whole structure of the Protestant Episcopal Church had been established in the 1780s specifically to replace “Lordly Bishops” with “Primitive Bishops” who ministered with the parish clergy as one among them.
When I was first attending Texas Diocesan Councils in the late 1960s and early 1979s, Council actually made substantive decisions about diocesan program and budget–it did not just serve as a rubber stamp for decisions made by an executive committee under the complete control of the Bishop. That is the case today, and I gather the same process has been underway over the last 40 years in every other diocese as well. Back then, a parish rector was wedded to his parish and could not leave except by mutual consent; today, most rectors serve effectively at the pleasure of their bishop. Back then, vestries often served as real centers of authority; today, notwithstanding all the rhetoric about “total ministry,” clergy are far more in control over the laity than ever.
All these changes have fundamentally changed the experience of being an Episcopalian (or, more generally, an American Anglican). The carefully crafted federal system in which each level had its own proper sphere of authority has vanished. We have grown used to top-down management that takes no serious account of the principle of subsidiarity. That is true regardless of party alignment. The Anglican Bishop of Fort Worth and the Episcopal Bishop of Washington both operate as monarchical bishops, as “Lordly” as any pre-Revolutionary Bishop of London. The contesting Primates in the U.S.A. both act as if they were metropolitans with ordinary jurisdiction over all the dioceses in their province.
This change in authority patterns has also operated internationally. The frustration on both Right and Left against the Archbishop of Canterbury has largely been due to the perception that he is acting improperly by refusing to accept the top-down paradigm and intervening forcefully on their behalf. Both sides in our ongoing disputes see a power vacuum that they are trying to fill by enhancing the authority of the Standing Committee, the Primates Meeting, or whoever. Forty years ago, Abp. Rowan would have been applauded when he (like Bp. Hines) assumed only the authority of a first among equals and refused to exercise jurisdiction outside his own church.
It is a new world.
[blockquote] Forty years ago, Abp. Rowan would have been applauded when he (like Bp. Hines) assumed only the authority of a first among equals and refused to exercise jurisdiction outside his own church. [/blockquote]
Dale, your analysis appears to ignore the single most important factor – apostasy. How can we possibly draw a comparison with 40 years ago, when back then we did not have a national church advocating the ordination and consecration of those who openly practice and advocate homosexuality?
I suggest that if +++Coggan or +++Ramsay had failed to speak out strongly against TEC’s apostasy (if it had occurred back then), exactly the same thing would have happened as now – the orthodox majority in the Communion would have been initially appalled, and then moved towards schism.
To continue my previous post (I seem to be hitting send button too early today), from the point of view of the orthodox, +++Williams failure to take particular overt action is not the real sin. The primary or foundational sin is his failure to declare a public and firm position against apostasy.
That is the first duty of any bishop, whether he has centralised or decentralised power: State your position, proclaim where you stand. Often it is that witness alone which makes the difference.
Strong church leaders usually win their position simply by publicly declaring an orthodox position and maintaining it in the face of threats, arguments, viliication or whatever. That is what +++Williams hasn’t done.
MichaelA
Yes, love your statement-
Strong church leaders usually win their position simply by publicly declaring an orthodox position and maintaining it in the face of threats, arguments, viliication or whatever. That is what +++Williams hasn’t done.
True but Mark Lawrence+ has!! I am glad he has done so AND will continue to do so.
Dale,
I don’t agree. When PECUSA was founded about two centuries ago, state churches (and then dioceses) already existed. Their bishops were already THE authority in their respective dioceses. The founding of PECUSA did not take that power away from Diocesean Bishops. The Presiding Bishop was never intended to be any thing other than a first among equals which clearly this PB does not understand.