Lisa Miller of Newsweek thinks that the deliberations of Episcopalians really don’t matter. Personally, I not only rather agree that they’re suffering from delusions of soi-disant prophetic self-importance, but I wish a great many other Anglicans (not least those in Nigeria) could be equally indifferent. However in the course of what was otherwise an entirely unsurprising article, she retailed these facts:
Thirty one of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence belonged to the Church of England, as did 21 of the 39 signers of the Constitution. George Washington was an Anglican.
If I’d thought about it for a bit, I suppose this would have seemed quite logical given the nature of things. As it is, I was rather surprised.
(PS. Thanks, Justin, for the link)
{ 5 comments }
Doug,
I think that the importance of the Episcopal split is really only relevant to non-Anglicans to the extent that it’s a microcosm of the tension within other denominational bodies that are more significant (e.g. the ECLA is going through a vote on non-celibate homosexual clergy.) While there was a time when Episcopalians mattered in the United States, they have long since been eclipsed by Southern Baptists, Catholics, and a host of other religious bodies (it’s entirely possible that there are more Eastern Orthodox in the United States that Episcopalians), but as a matter of Old World money and WASPy legacy, they are important to American history.
Do you know what Haitians, Ecuadorians, Taiwanese, etc. have had to say about the American church’s positions and actions, being under their primacy and all?
-JAK
Given that many government position in most colonies probably required nominal membership in the CoE, it is not surprising.
However membership doesn’t equate to being an orthodox follower. George Washington was known not to take communion during his presidency and apparently for some time before.
The more staggering statistic is that they’ve lost 31% of their members in the past eight years.
Gee, I just make an inconsequential comment about my historical ignorance, and you all try to have different serious conversations.
@Justin. No idea, but not my point.
@Em. Don’t put words in my mouth. I said nothing about whether they meant it.
@Tim. Not my point either
Nominal Anglicans, maybe, but how many of them could accept the creeds, let alone the 39 Articles, with a clear conscience? Many of them were deists. Probably few were orthodox Christians. Perhaps in that way not much has changed.
Comments on this entry are closed.