I had a professor in graduate school who commented how much he really liked the articles in the magazine Scientific American.  Except, he said, for articles in his discipline and then he found that they had errors or were incomplete.  The implication is that we can analyze and critique what we know but in other areas we may miss the full story.

This is how I feel after reading the new Bishops’ Statement on the Polity of the Episcopal Church issued by the Anglican Communion Institute.  Reading through it I found the Statement interesting and I learned a lot.  In fact, in many of the sections I was drawing the parallels to the polity of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).  But then I hit the short section on PC(USA) polity and I found it superficial and incomplete causing me to call into question the document as a whole.  They are not very good at the area I know and I can’t properly critique the rest where I am not experienced.

The purpose of the Statement is to argue that The Episcopal Church (TEC) is not a hierarchical church — that the dioceses and their bishops are autonomous and that the General Conference is a voluntary association of dioceses. This is argued with a number of lines of reasoning, some of which make a lot of sense to me and a couple that don’t seem to support the point.

Now I know a lot about Presbyterian polity but very little about the fine points of Anglican or Episcopal polity so I am not going to do a point-by-point analysis.  But as I read through the document there were clear parallels to American Presbyterianism.

1. They discuss “ordinary power”

“Ordinary” is a term of art in Anglican and Roman Catholic ecclesiology and canon law that refers to the power inherent in the office given by the Lord to Peter and the Apostles. (p. 3)

There is clearly no direct Presbyterian parallel to the office of the bishop as an individual with apostolic power, but the Presbyterian concept of “permissive powers of the congregation” appears similar to the “ordinary power” discussed here.  (That would be G-7.0304a(5) in the PC(USA) Book of Order and check out my discussion at the end of my post on congregational power for more on the various thoughts about permissive powers.)]

2. Historically dioceses were organized earlier and later associated into a national structure similar to presbyteries being the first higher governing body in American Presbyterianism predating synods and the general assembly.

3. In the Episcopal General Convention each diocese has an equal vote while in the PC(USA) it is apportioned by membership.  But maybe more important, in the PC(USA) each presbytery has an equal vote when it comes to agreeing to confessional or constitutional changes.

4. The Principle of Subsidiarity — there is a difference in the nuances here, but the parallel with the PC(USA) is still striking.  This document says (p. 11):

“Subsidiarity expresses a preference for governance at the most local level consistent with achieving government’s stated purposes.”

This is reflected in two ways in the PC(USA) Book of Order.  From G-9.0402b

b. The administration of mission should be performed by the governing body that can most effectively and efficiently accomplish it at the level of jurisdiction nearest the congregation.

And from G-9.0103

All governing bodies of the church are united by the nature of the church and share with one another responsibilities, rights, and powers as provided in this Constitution. The governing bodies are separate and independent, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate governing body. The jurisdiction of each governing body is limited by the express provisions of the Constitution, with powers not mentioned being reserved to the presbyteries, and with the acts of each subject to review by the next higher governing body. [emphasis added]

So far all well and good.  There are these points that I see as strong parallels between TEC and PC(USA) polity.  And then…

I hit the section where they compare TEC to other churches.  The discussion makes sense to me when they talk about clearly hierarchical churches, like the Roman Catholic and Serbian Orthodox Churches.  But in the Protestant branches they include the PC(USA).  It is not the inclusion of the PC(USA) that irked me but the way they did.  Here is the complete discussion of the church:

Likewise, the constitution of the Presbyterian Church USA indicates unequivocally the hierarchical relationship of its bodies:

The General Assembly is the highest governing body of this church and is representative of the unity of the synods, presbyteries, sessions, and congregations of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). [G-13.0101]

The General Assembly is also given the explicit power “to provide authoritative interpretation of the Book of Order which shall be binding on the governing bodies of the church….” [G-13.0103]

Where do I begin…

What may be the most surprising to you is that if I had to provide a Book of Order citation to “prove” the PC(USA) was hierarchical I would have used something out of G-4.0300, the Principles of Presbyterian Government.  For example:

f. A higher governing body shall have the right of review and control over a lower one and shall have power to determine matters of controversy upon reference, complaint, or appeal; [G-4.0301f]

So what are the problems with the citations they use?  First, as I have mentioned above, while the General Assembly may be the “highest governing body,” it bears many similarities to the General Convention which they argue is not a hierarchical power.  These similarities include the presbytery/diocesan representation to the body and the fact that the higher body can not unilaterally change the confessions or constitution.  They are correct that the General Assembly is given the power to interpret the constitution but as Presbyterians know there are subtleties here, especially over the last few years with alternate and superseding interpretations by the Assembly itself and the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission related to ordination standards.  It also should be noted that constitutional changes are not only ratified by the presbyteries but nearly all begin as overtures from the presbyteries.  Finally, in Presbyterianism the term “higher governing body” is a term of art and is understood not to be an entity unto itself but a part of our connectionalism, a sign of unity of the church since it is comprised of commissioners from the lower governing bodies.

In analyzing the arguments in this Statement I thought back on the oral arguments before the California Supreme Court on the Episcopal Church Cases regarding church property and the trust clause.  I tried to review the arguments to give a direct quote but the video appears to have been removed from the web.  But, as I reported at the time, when the lawyer for the churches was answering justices’ questions about the principle of government theory and the hierarchical church he said that break-away churches would prevail under that legal theory because even though they have left TEC they are still part of the Worldwide Anglican Communion
.  They are still part of a global hierarchy.

Now, I am not arguing that under their arguments and logic the PC(USA) is not a “hierarchical church.”  One of their marks of a hierarchical church is review of lower bodies by higher bodies which is a hallmark of Presbyterianism.  But from a legal point of view for civil litigation I don’t know if that is either necessary or sufficient to pronounce a body a hierarchical church.  Similarly, while I understand and appreciate the arguments made in the Bishops’ Statement at least a few state supreme courts have not seen it the same way.  (Although California sort of dodged the issue by using neutral principles to side with the denomination in the majority decision.)  And if scrupling is upheld we may see how hierarchical the PC(USA) is if a presbytery is forced to accept an officer ordained in another presbytery after declaring an exception.

It is an interesting article and I enjoyed reading it, especially the sections related to the shaping of the church in the late 1700’s.  Historically their argument seemed to hold up.  But after finishing the document I had to ask myself “what is the rest of the story?”  I know what it was for American Presbyterianism.  What else is left out regarding the Episcopalians?