The Unique Polity of the Episcopal Church?

The President of the House of Deputies, in remarks made in an internet-viewable report of a private meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury, expressed the view that the polity of the Episcopal Church is unique ('anomalous')and must be appreciated as such (9 July 2009). This opinion appeared to be directed at an account of the church that has given and gives significant and prioritized room for communications and directives to be made from Bishop to Bishop. Another spokesperson present indicated that the Archbishop was told that communications from the Communion ought to be made to the General Convention, as the only authority able to respond, and not the Bishops. We can leave to the side whether this account from the President and others is in reality fair, insofar as the Presiding Bishop of this church is a Bishop and is elected by the body presumably seen as unique, and other provinces of the communion could likewise ask for a special appreciation of this or that feature of their polity. Lambeth Conference is an Instrument of Communion and it is comprised of Bishops; the ACC has lay and clerical representation; and so forth. TEC's polity has never been viewed as a hindrance to involvement in these Instruments before, and it is difficult to see how the General Convention is in some special position of senior authority above the Bishops (see below), or that laity and clergy in this church have 'equal authority' (so the President of the House of Bishops). But what does it mean to argue that the polity of TEC is unique? If the emphasis is on significant discontinuity with the character of that polity otherwise seen to be representative of Anglicanism, is the danger not in cutting TEC off from the Communion at large? Surely the continuity of the Anglican Communion"”whatever the special features of this or that polity"”is to be grasped in the Episcopal Office. No specialness can alter that feature without at the same time creating a truly national denomination. If this is what the President of the House of Deputies is calling for, let her indicate that she realizes that and wishes it to be so and means to make it so. At the founding of the Episcopal Church in this country efforts were made to create a polity that constrained the office of Bishop, and held it accountable to a second House. Does the President of the House of Deputies mean that uniqueness lies in this sort of understanding? If so, it bears recalling that at precisely this point the new church had to defer to the spirit of recommendations of the Church of England, and the pleadings of Seabury, if she was to remain a branch of the catholic expression of Anglicanism. So the General Convention that then emerged did not in the least preempt or constrain the special responsibility of Bishops, and it is exactly that reality that serves to give proportion to any idea of special features. It is important as well to keep comments like this in perspective given other recent trends. In the legal submissions made by the national church, we have seen a different argument for the 'special polity' of this church. The fact that there are similarities but also differences suggests that these arguments serve the purpose chiefly of aiding in a cause, and less in the accuracy of their historical claims, or the consistency of their logic and presentation. In these submissions it is being held that bishops are at the bottom of a sort of 'amalgam of hierarchy,' consisting of General Convention, the Presiding Bishop, and the Executive Council, and then the 'subordinate units' of bishops/dioceses. It is however difficult to see this understanding as an expression of egalitarianism, if that was what the President of the House of Deputies was suggesting was 'unique' about TEC in remarks to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Indeed, it points to a hierarchy quite unlike even the one that obtains in the Church of England, but one which is quite at home in business and commercial affairs or in some denominations in this country. But the loser in both models is precisely that office which traces back to the Apostles, has a biblical warrant, and has been the hallmark of Anglican polity throughout time and space. It is therefore to be hoped that cooler heads will prevail in these heady times. It is all well and good to speak of special features of the polity of TEC, but if the idea is to make facts on the ground, or create a national denomination, then the concomitant should be to allow those in the church who treasure the polity we do have, and wish to abide by its plain sense, to do so. Precisely those features of our polity that make us who we are, make us Anglicans and Episcopalians both. If some want only the latter, they must create a new polity and not claim the one we have is the one they are defending.