As a brief fourth of July commemoration, Bishop Epting posted a short blog entry Democracy and the Church. We do seem to be hearing this theme alot lately from TEC bishops and other leaders.
As we prepare to celebrate the Fourth of July, Independence Day, it is interesting to reflect on our “American expression” of Anglicanism. Much is made of the fact that some of the same framers of the U.S. Constitution had input into the framing of our polity as the Episcopal Church in this land. Hence, our own “constitutional” form of government, the two Houses of our General Convention (with the House of Bishops often compared to the Senate; the House of Deputies to the House of Representatives), and a “Presiding,” rather than “Arch-” Bishop as chief executive officer.
All this certainly has historical roots and is interesting at least for that reason. However, I would want to argue for much more ancient and theologically significant reasons for our “democratic polity.” And that is that the “mind of Christ is to be discerned within the Body of Christ” and that means the whole people of God ”” lay persons, bishops, priests and deacons.
Yeh, problem is, the HOD is not at all like the House of Representatives in that it’s not based on population of parishioners in a diocese. Instead both the HOB and the HOD function as and are made up of the imperial senators.
As a result, the diocese of Texas has the same “representation” as the Diocese of Nevada, which is not at all how the House of Representatives works.
Just another of the BIG differences between the American system of government and the ECUSAs.
Oh — and politicians actually care about what their constituents think, since they are elected by them, unlike our HOD which are elected by another equivalent of a diocesan “senate” and not directly by the people.
And another thing, even governors and senators have to be reelected, but in the case of bishops, they are like the monarchy — no recall, no ousting, only permanent rule.
I could go on, but why bother? Nothing that most Episcopalians who have participated [or observed] don’t already know.
Bishop Epting is at the far “protestant” end of the Anglican spectrum of theological ‘discernment,’ which is not a problem if he chooses to associate only with theologically creative protestants.
However, the last time I checked the Niacene Creed, I found it asserted our committment to the Church Catholic.
Now, if you willy-nilly involve, often theologically incompetent laity, in matters of theological discernment, you are very likely to end up with a faith that has departed from the “Faith once given” and is much more like the faith that Billy Bob might preach in a newly created church. This sort of church is a church with questionable ties to Scripture and tradition and no ties to a church governed by the episcopacy that provides the rule discernment of the Church Catholic.
Seems like the good bishop might really approve of a “Billy-Bob” type of church. In that case, he should invite a committee of lay persons into his office in order to help him govern his diocese. That is, he should be willing to give up both the authority of his rule and that of his ordained position in the discernment process of his church.
It must be significant that Jesus gave the keys of his Church to Peter, whom he had trained for three years for the job. Peter and the other Apostles, not the crowds. We are the Body, but we need leadership. We aren’t the determiners of the Word, as you would expect in a democracy; we are only the receivers.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
Reply to comment #3.
Succinctly well stated.
Bishop Epting makes my poing for me. We are talking about the WHOLE body of Christ…which extends beyond the borders of ECUSA, and indeed, the Anglican Communion.
I was a Baptist once…I didn’t come here to act like another breed of congregationalist.
However, if it’s a democracy, then *we* are in charge of the Body of Christ. But if Christ is in charge, then it’s not a democracy.
The Episcopal Church is, basically, a democracy now, and we have learned that most of them either favor licentiousness or are at least satisfied with it. As bad a sinner as I am, I still know that isn’t right. The Body needs to be led through its bishops into the Word of Christ as he gave it… and not as we want it to be. No democracy will accomplish that.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
dave@christos.cjb, dpeirce@christian.net
Another difference is the lack of the Judicial Branch, separate from the other two branches, to provide even more checks and balances. Perhaps if we had an active, separate ‘Court’ in TEC, we might not be where we are today.
Shucks, LJ, just look at the USA… the courts were the FIRST body to be corrupted by liberalism.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
dpeirce,
I was hoping you wouldn’t bring that up! 😉
LJ, ^_^.
Thing is, though, the model we were given is the model of Apostles and bishops. The “court†model seems more like the pharisees, with their sanhedrin. But, yes, Anglicanism needs a central authority so it can withstand Satan’s attacks. That might not sit well with those who are more Protestantly or democratically inclined but, IMHO, you’re dead in the water without it.
I was Episcopal (51 years) and am now Roman (3 years). I bailed from TEC when I realised there was no mechanism within the Church to restore the Word if the leadership were corrupted. I understand Sarah Hey’s argument for staying and fighting, but I had family to think of. Now we are under an AUTHORITY which has stood up much better against revisionism. And, IMHO, that authority is much closer to the way the Church was established. I’m thinking about the way Paul went around knocking heads together when people began deviating from the Word received. But there isn’t anyone like that in the Anglican Communion, not even ++Akinola.
Covenant? I’ll cheer it *IF* I see it!!!
I pray for you guys every day. And I mourn my old Church.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas