Traditionally, there have been three main models:
Ӣ Power in the hands of the bishops in councils (as in the Eastern Orthodox models: the Catholic model displays an unusual dominance over councils of one bishop, the pope)
Ӣ Oversight and authority in the hands of elders
Ӣ Congregational: with the leadership in the democratic voting hands of the church members
Typically the Anglican model has a touch of each. The General Synod is divided into three houses ”“ bishops, clergy and laity.
As a former BBC religious affairs correspondent, I reported on some fine debates, as well as some woeful ones. But all too often the adversarial nature of procedures were all too like Parliament.
Ms. Hartill, it not necessarily in her vague proposals, at least in her general diagnosis. Decision-making in the church represents one of the great theological challenges of the present. It is not, however, simply a matter of throwing out parliamentary procedures and even structures. Christians have not been notably successful when decisions are made apart from these realities either. The (ongoing) divisions of the Christian Church are directly related, at least from a human perspective, to failures in Christian decision-making. Ultimately, of course, it is not just about getting the right procedures, since what is at stake is faithfulness to God in the form of Christ. But procedures are at least a part of this ultimate vocation.
Dr. Radner (#1),
As always, I’m glad when you chime in and offer thoughtful comments. I agree that the problems the Church faces today are much deeper than merely proceedural matters. For example, Lambeth 2008 was explicitly designed to avoid polarizing votes, but (IMHO) was a colossal waste of time and money.
Ultimately, I’d say that the root problem is that an unnecessary “adversarial stance” is built into many of the oldline denominational institutions since rival and mutually exclusive worldviews are being (wrongly) allowed to co-exist, in a way that’s completely unbiblical and contrary to the patristic model. Our relativistic, pluralistic western culture exalts “tolerance” as supposedly the highest of virtues and denigrates dogmatism, prejudice, and exclusivism as if they were the worst of vices. The only “heresy” left, it seems, not least in Anglicanism, is that there are any heresies or immoral practices worth excommunicating people for anymore.
It’s not surprising, given our state church heritage as Anglicans, that we have supreme difficulty resisting the strong relativist current so prevalent in our day. But in a post-Christendom era like we now find ourselves in, it’s essential that the Church rediscover how to be genuinely counter-cultural, to be the salt in a rapidly decaying society, and to be in the world but not of the world, and to stand against the world’s idols and ideologies, out of love for the world’s people.
We desperately need to rediscover how to put the classic Doctrine and Discipline back into the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Anglican Church, even if that means literally excommunicating many thousands of Anglican leaders, lay and ordained.
[i]”A house divided against itself cannot stand.”[/i]
For much too long now, we Anglicans have boasted of our fuzzy boundaries in theology and morals, as it were some cause for pride. It’s not. For too long, we’ve boasted of what we should be ashamed of (our utter incoherence theologically and our totaly break down of discipline morally), and we’ve vainly imagined that we could somehow make a theological virtue out of a historical and political necessity (including everybody in a state church).
People who disagree with Lambeth 1998’s Res. 1.10 [b]on the basis of the theological and moral relativism that commonly underlies the pro-gay agenda[/b] should never have been allowed a place at the table and in the discussion. Now that would quickly put a stop to the adversarial animosity that the author bemoans in this article!
David Handy+