I Think that the American Church has done an embarrassingly poor job of articulating its theology. I found its response to the Windsor report (the document To Set our Hope on Christ) lacking in theological arguÂment, and have said so publicly.
The American response emÂphasised the personal experiences of members of the Body of Christ in the United States, and the historical context that led to the American Church’s current position. This reÂflects the nature of theological discusÂsion in the United States, where exÂperience and historical context are given great weight. This is a theoÂloÂgical epistemÂology that I think is quite defensible. But I think that theoÂÂÂlogical epistemÂology itself needed to be defended, and that was not done.
In addition, by putting so much emphasis there, doctrinal issues that are part of the debate ”” such as scripÂÂtural authority and human nature ”” were not discussed in enough depth. Theologies of scripÂtural authority and human nature were implied, but not elaborated. The American position deserves (and can receive) a stronger theological rationÂale.
Just what is the theology of TEC? That may be why it is difficult to articulate.
I thought TEC’s theology was whatever the current DNC talking points are.
RE: “I THINK that the American Church has done an embarrassingly poor job of articulating its theology.”
Oh I don’t think so. I think To Set Our Hope On Christ is just *perfect* for expressing the theology of revisionists in TEC. Its vacuous and shallow expression nicely parallels the theological content.
[i]The American Church (as the first anti-colonial Church) has a clear theology of the episcopate, how power should be distributed, and how the lines of accountability flow. This is represented by the fact that our bishops are elected by clergy and laity together; that the elected General Convention has a great deal of auÂthorÂity relative to the Primate and the bishops; and that our Primate is called “the Presiding Bishopâ€, and not the Archbishop or even, ordinarily, the “Primateâ€. Such a doctrine places the episcopate in the context of a very strong doctrine of the priesthood of all believers and of the distribution of the Holy Spirit throughout the Body of Christ.
Of course, this is a part of American culture. In its constitution and throughout much of its history, the United States has articulated an understanding of power which emÂphasises authority flowing from the bottom up, and constrained by a system of checks and balances.
The governing structure of the Episcopal Church was established at about the same time as the United States’ constitutional government, and there are clear parallels between them. Governing authority resides with the Church’s elected General Convention, paralleling the US national legislature, and both are divided into two elected houses. The power of the executive branch (the President and the Presiding Bishop) is carefully circumscribed.[/i]
As I remarked [url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com/2009/01/historical-response-to-jim-stockton_03.html]elsewhere[/url] this is a most misleading reading of history. It would be fairer to say that the Episcopal Church was the last (and most reluctant) anti-colonial church and while it is significant that its Constitution was approved in 1789, I suspect that it was at least as much an attempt to propitiate those who suspected its enduring anglophilia as a wholehearted embrace of lay democracy. ‘Weak’ bishops were favored in low church Virginia but not in Seabury’s Connecticut or Hobart’s New York and – as we know – it was the Hobartian vision that ultimately triumphed. General Conventions were the scene of bitter battles, especially during the 1840s and 1870s, but dioceses remained remarkably independent at least until the 1920s and arguably into the 1960s. It’s certainly true that both General Convention and the Presiding Bishop have accrued power since the 1970s, but this is a very recent development.
Strange how he got so quickly from a `theology of the episcopate’ to a discussion of how power is distributed, as though the two were the same, or `top-down’ and `bottom-up’ are the only possibilities. Surely All authority in heaven and earth is given to Jesus, who is the head of all rule and authority. It seems to me that this theology of the episcopate which gives General Conventions or Bishops the role which should first be given to Jesus and (through him) the apostles seems to me to be flawed.
Also, and more seriously, this immediate shift from `theology of the episcopate’ to `power’ neglects the teaching and sacramental roles of the episcopate, not to mention that first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues were first appointed to those positions by God; and And thus preaching through countries and cities, they [The apostles] appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe (1 Clement). Which is odd, since I have always held that the authority of the episcopate flows from their appointment by God (via their predecessors) to the teaching and sacramental character; thus it seems more natural to first discuss these roles rather than immediately jump in with the `distribution of power.’
In other words, in the mental jump in these two sentences he is demonstrating his English colleague’s point.
Whether the theology is clear is not the question. All those who have spent any time looking at the polity of the episcopal church understand its nature and history well enough. The question is whether or not the theology is correct: in agreement with will of God as revealed in the practice and writings of the apostolic and patristic Churches; and in this piece the Rev Dr Jones did nothing to answer that question. That is the matter about which I would image the English colleague had his doubts.
Poorly read in the facts howsoever he might have a degree.