-- a discussion starter!
Is there still an underlying – or even an on-the-surface – pride amongst members, even “orthodox” and “evangelical” ones, of the Episcopal Church of the USA in the name “Episcopalian”?
Americans in 1789 followed the example of the tiny Church in Scotland called “The Episcopal Church” and called their secession from the Church of England by the name of “The Protestant Episcopal Church”. They saw themselves as both the heirs of the Reformation of the sixteenth century and of the continuing tradition of the Threefold Ministry of Bishop (Episcopos), Presbyter and Deacon. They were not, certainly not, Presbyterian as was, and is, the National Church of Scotland. Further, in the twentieth century, finding that “Protestant” was an embarrassment, especially socially for it classed this Church with the growing number of [blue-collar?] Protestant members of the supermarket of religions, this word in the title was dropped, and is rarely heard today. So most people do not know that the legal title of the denomination is “the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA.”
The adjective “Episcopal” or the noun “Episcopalian” came to be a means by which the distinctiveness and social standing of this Church/Denomination was preserved and conveyed in the USA. It made a claim both for historical and cultural depth as well as for social standing, with a certain apartness. And, of course, until very recently, this was matched by the presence as communicants of the Church of a significant members of the Supreme Court, Congress, White House and major corporations and educational institutions, not to mention the armed forces.
Unless my discernment is wrong, I see this “pride of name” prevalent amongst members of the Episcopal Church today, even, and regrettably, amongst those who classify themselves as “orthodox” and reckon others to be “revisionists.” “Episcopalian” is used both by the “orthodox” and the “revisionists” to distinguish those who remain in the Episcopal Church from those who have left to form “schismatic” churches. Those who remain are the real thing -- “Episcopalians” -- and those who depart become “Anglicans” and are certainly on no account any longer “Episcopalians”.
“Anglican”, used in a generic sense as if a generic drug, describes a religion emanating originally from the Church of England, that is available most places in the world. It does not have the particularities and distinctive features of the word “Episcopalian” as historically used in American polite society. This said, since “Anglican” is used by the co-religionists of Episcopalians abroad, the name “Anglican” is used by Episcopalians when it is deemed good and right to emphasize the connection with the rest of the world – thus the name “Anglican Communion Network” by the “orthodox” within the Episcopal Church.
Thus, while “Episcopalian” may simply be used as a description of a certain kind of churchgoer, it is often used, as also the adjective, “Episcopal”, by insiders as a form pride in a name, a tradition, a social standing and the like. Maybe they are not wholly aware of this and someone needs to tell them!
I think that this kind of pride was seen at the recent “Hope and a Future” Conference in Pittsburgh. On the first evening, in a crowded program, a two hour Eucharist was held; it included a great “fashion show” of bishops and clergy dressed in their regalia and all in procession and on show. It seemed as though they were saying, “Here we are! We are not the same as others; we are different; we are Episcopalians; no other denomination in the USA puts on a show like this; we have our special characteristics and here they are for all to see and take pride in.”
Now there was a big Eucharist planned for the Saturday morning and thus there was no need for this one after dinner (what about fasting?) on the Thursday in a short conference with an over-loaded program(in a context where local churches were offering early services each morning all the same). Yet, even Evangelicals who organized this Conference and who have never been famous for high liturgy, felt impelled to have this liturgical show. They had to exhibit the distinctives of Episcopaliansm. This is the thing to do even by those who speak of reform and renewal!
The pride is also I suggest seen in the names posted outside the buildings of local parishes and used daily by them in conversation. Instead of naming the parish in this way – St Hilda’s Church, Georgetown, [Episcopal] Diocese of Lafayette – the chosen way, even of the “orthodox” is nearly always “St Hilda’s Episcopal Church”. Why insert “Episcopal” between the name of the saint and what is dedicated in his or her name? The early tradition in the Colonies and then the USA was simply to put the name of the saint (or of Christ) and then the place – as is still the case in the C of E and Europe. But now the “brand” name is all important!
It is interesting that “the Episcopal Synod” of the early 1990s became “Forward in Faith North America” in the late 1990s, as it adopted the generic name from the UK! Before that time, however, its pride in being ‘Episcopal” served as one major factor in its not achieving the goals that its lay membership expected and worked for. Thus now it is a patch of what it was in 1989!
How much pride is there in the name “Episcopalian” amongst the “Evangelicals” who organized the Pittsburgh event?
Are they willing to give up the name wholly and completely and use the generic name only to describe themselves?
Will their clinging to the name, and its association with social acceptability, property, money and retirement benefits, be a means, as it apparently was with the Episcopal Synod in the early 1990s, of making them a people who cannot, by these impediments, be effective leaders of genuine reform, renewal and re-alignment?
Are they more Episcopalian than Anglican, preferring the trade name always to the generic name, except when traveling overseas?
Is one reason for clinging to the name with pride the fact that the Episcopal boat is still regarded as the best boat to fish from by those who place great emphasis on “the great commission”?
What are we all ready to give up for the kingdom of God and the Ecclesia of God?
petertoon@msn.com November 16, 2005
No comments:
Post a Comment