By Bishops Rent Asunder... Part I - The Conventions of the Church

A line from a paraody of 'The Church's One Foundation' which I sometimes think describes the dilemma facing Continuing Anglicanism in the early 1980s as it worked out the implications of both separating from the Episcopal Church, and of the Affirmation of St Louis. The United Episcopal Church of North America, of which I have been the Presiding Bishop for almost fifteen years, was an early departure from the Anglican Catholic Church mainly because of tensions over the Affirmation, Churchmanship, and the new Constitution and Canons. By contrast to most other Continuing Anglican bodies, the UECNA, whilst acknowledging the historical value of the Affirmation as a diagnostic of the problems of PECUSA in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, relies on the older formularies - the Prayer Book, Articles, and Homilies - to form it theology and practice. This gives us a certain freedom that other Continuing Churches do not have to explore the character of Anglicanism in America

One of the things that I have become intrigued by recently is the position of Episcopacy in the Protestant Episcopal Church during its formative stages from 1782 to 1789. White's Case of "The Episcopal Churches in the United States of America Considered" and the early General Convention Journals see this being worked out in real time. What is very clear about White is that he is a definite Episcopalian who values the institution, but in the emergency situation that existed 1782-87, he could see his way clear to preserve the substance of episcopacy without insisting on the historic succession. It is also clear from White's writings that he saw authority in the American Church as being of the bottom-up variety, noting that in America parishes existed but no dioceses, for example,

"In England, dioceses having been formed before parishes, a church supposes one common flock, subject to a bishop and sundry collegiate presbyters; without the idea of its being necessarily divided into smaller communities connected with their respective parochial clergy; the latter having been introduced some considerable time after the conversion of the nation to the christian faith. One natural consequence of this distinction, will be to retain in each church every power that need not be delegated for the good of the whole. Another, will be an equality of the churches; and not, as in England, the subjection of all parish churches to their respective cathedrals."

This led him to advance the following structure for the Church:

Vestries send their clergy and elected lay delegates to a local convention. White's language in 'The Case' does not delineate these as being State Conventions, but,

"In each smaller district, there should be elected a general vestry or convention, consisting of a convenient number (the minister to be one) from the vestry or congregation of each church, or of every two or more churches, according to their respective ability of supporting a minister. They should elect a clergyman their permanent president; who, in conjunction with other clergymen to be also appointed by the body, may exercise such powers as are purely spiritual, particularly that of admitting to the ministry; the presiding clergyman, and others to be liable to be deprived for just causes, by a fair process, and under reasonable laws; meetings to be held as often as occasion may require."

Three or more of these district conventions were to be gathered together into a regional body which,

"The assemblies in the three larger districts may consist of a convenient number of members, sent from each of the smaller districts severally within their bounds, equally composed of clergy and laity, and voted for by those orders promiscuously; the presiding clergyman to be always one, and these bodies to meet once in every year."

This middle tier of Synodical Government did not in the final scheme approved in 1789, and even the modern provinces of TEC do not have a representative Convention in the way intended here. This middle tier of government may have been provided for in the Constitution of the PEC in the Confederates States where it states there shall be 'diocesan, provincial, and general Councils' but at the time this was written (1862) it was an aspiration for the future not a present reality.

Lastly came the General Convention, which seems to have been intended to have only limited powers given the principle of retain authority at the lowest practicable level ennunciated earlier in the document, and reiterated here,

"The continental representative body may consist of a convenient number from each of the larger districts, formed equally of clergy and laity, and among the clergy, formed equally of presiding ministers and others; to meet statedly once in three years. The use of this and the preceding representative bodies is to make such regulations, and receive appeals in such matters only, as shall be judged necessary for their continuing one religious communion."

Taken as a whole, the document conceives of a fully representative form of Church Government, presided over by elected Presidents who will in the end become the bishops of the newly independent Church. Also, in its bottom-up approach to power, it is close in its principles to the Federal Constitution that was drawn up at the same time. However, White's proposal was modified before it became law, as it were. In the various versions of the Constitution that appeared between 1785 and 1789 the following levels of government were instituted,

1. Parishes elected lay representatives and sent their clergy to a State Convention. This body elected one of the clergy as president. There would be two houses - clergy and laity.
2. Each State Convention elected four clergy and four laity to sit in the General Convention, and this body elected one of the clergy to be its President. Likewise there would be two houses, and the concurrance of both is neccessary for legislation and resolutions to pass.

As bishops became a reality, the Constitution was amended so that bishops sat and voted with the clergy, and that one of the Bishops presided. This scheme was adopted by the Reformed Episcopal Church in 1873/4 in an attempt to calm the rising clericalism of the late 1800s, whilst in the PECUSA it was quickly modified to accommodate the concerns of the New England delegates who were to join the Convention during the second session of 1789. These were lead by Samuel Seabury, who had definite opinions about the role of bishops that were somewhat higher than those of White and a majority of the delegates from the Middle and Southern States. In order to mollify Seabury, the second 1789 version of the Constitution is modified to allow for the creation of a separate House of Bishops,

"The Bishops of this church, when there shall be three or more, shall, whenever general conventions are held, form a house of revision, and when any proposed act shall have passed in the general convention, the same shall be transmitted to the house of revision, for their concurrence. And if the same shall-be sent back to the Convention, with the negative or non-concurrence of the house of revision, it shall be again considered in the General Convention, and if the Convention shall adhere to the said act, by a majority of three-fifths of their body, it shall become a law to all intents and purposes, notwithstanding the non-concurrence of the house of revision; and all acts of the Convention shall be authenticated by both houses. And in all cases, the house of Bishops shall signify to the Convention their approbation or disapprobation, the latter with their reasons in writing, within two days after the proposed act shall have been reported to them for concurrence, and in failure thereof it shall have the operation of a law."

As can be seen, even with the influence of Seabury, the amount of independent power conceded to the bishops was extremely limited, and to all intents and purposes maintained the division of powers so beloved of 18th century American political thinkers.

[Next - Part II - The Episcopal Office]