One factor in our current turmoil in The Episcopal Church and the larger Anglican Communion is the power and authority of bishops. One way to read the primates’ communiqué is as a rejection of the polity of The Episcopal Church that limits the power of bishops to make policy for the larger church. William White never proposed a distinct House of Bishops separate from the House of Deputies. For him, the clergy and laity meeting together, with their bishops, was adequate, as is still the case in diocesan conventions.
Born and educated in the democratic cauldron of Philadelphia, White did not object to the role of bishops elsewhere, but believed the new American church had an opportunity to return to its primitive roots when, before Constantine, the laity participated in the selection of their bishop, and before 1066, when the power of a bishop was not an extension of the power of the state. For the New England states, White’s new democratic Catholicism went too far. The clergy of Connecticut so objected to White’s proposal to have the first duly elected bishop of the United States consecrated by presbyters, temporarily, until proper Episcopal orders could be attained, they chose (without the vote of the laity) Samuel Seabury as bishop. He sailed for Canterbury, where he would not be consecrated, and then moved on to the non-juror bishops of Scotland.
Seabury believed that apostolic bishops, not a democratic process shared by clergy and laity, should determine the governance and worship of the emergent Episcopal Church. But for William White, who knew how difficult it would be to unify an Episcopal Church out of its very diverse parts, a method of choosing bishops was needed before the choosing could happen. For White, to do otherwise would be like electing George Washington the president, and then having him write the Constitution.
Fr. Safford makes his point as well as anyone regarding polity.
So here were are, 200+ years after the Revolution, and we are back to “Low” vs. “High” arguments. I would argue that the Bishops, as Apostolic successors, have the right to intervene when necessary to presevere the unity and doctrine of the Church, and I have a feeling Seabury would argree with me!
I also submit that while Bishop White may agree with Fr. Safford’s ecclesiological approach, he would not be particularly enamoured of the theological drift it is supporting.
Randall
High church, low church, lots of candles, just a few; lots of incense, no incense; call him Father, call him Mister; genuflect, don’t genuflect; roman collar, suit & tie; etc. Red herrings all. The one thing is what must be decided; the one thing that is most important. What is the One Thing? Decide.
T
I’m not talking about candles and incence (no one used them in the 18th c., high or low). I’m talking about the ecclesiology of the church, which does matter. It is only means, though, towards the end of advancing the Kingdom.