I say that the Evangelicals insisted on imposing democratic governance on a church which was founded as a monarchy. The monarchic form was never removed, just denatured (partly by Parliament) so bishops gradually lost the fervor to assert control. Exceptional ones did anyway (such as Charles Grafton, Willaim White, Samuel Seabury, Levi Ives, etc.) but the main were administrators. The two forms of government can be compatible (witness our mixed secular government), but doctrine is not something that can be submitted to majority vote. It is either true from an unimpeachable source or it is false and even dangerous. Allowing democratic church rule allowed democratic interpretation of Scripture which allowed individualistic participation and local control The result is doctrinal chaos, eventually, sort of what TEC has now.
And it came in through the Evangelicals.
Now, the Anglo-Catholics failed to continuously and intensively educate and prophesy. So they come in for blame, too. But the action was rear-guard and I suspect not a little resented by folks in the pews. Given many of them really support democratic principles, their natural affinity will be with the Evangelicals and against the Anglo-Catholics and so went many votes in GCs down the years. It was a slow erosive process but very similar to what rivers do to mountainsides.
THis is the popular paradygm espoused by Roman Catholics and even ECUSA members, themselves.
Winston Churchill is very clear in book one of his History of the English Speaking Peoples, that the interests of Rome were always antagonistic to the interests of the English Christian church which was founded on a monastic model by St. patrick.
The Roman variant always dominated the European continent and was part of the Norman Invasion.
There is a very old Christian tradition that used to be singularly British but now has degenerated in secularism at all levels in the Anglican (British) church.
Thanks very much for your reply.
I do realize that the Kingdom is not based in democracy. And while I agree that doctrine should not be settled through majority vote in an ideal world, even the creeds developed out of a conciliar process that was vote based.
It is not clear to me that Evangelicals democratic intentions were motivated by a desire to settle doctrinal issues in that way. Rather it was more of a reaction against the monarchy, which is also what led to the American Revolution.
I believe that there are many issues in the church--largely matters of what the Windsor Report defined as "adiaphora" and not core doctrines--that are legitimately settled through majority vote. Perhaps the best situation this side of Heaven is a republican form of governance--democracy that is not a mere polite form of mob rule, instead it is governed through majority vote but interpreted through the lens of a guiding document--in this case Scripture. Even God warned against the pitfalls inherent in a monarchical system, desiring that Israel view Him as king.
It strikes me that the current problem in the Episcopal Church is not a matter of democracy gone bad, but of Bishops gone bad. Those who are sworn to protect the received faith have become active enemies against it. Surely the average Evangelical stands against the kind of decisions that have come out of the HOB and GC in recent years. The majority of Anglo-Catholics I know have tended to support the heretical bishops.
In the interest of full disclosure: I was raised Presbyterian--hence my democratic sensibilities. 11 years ago I was confirmed in the Episcopal Church and attended the most Anglo-Catholic parish in my dioceses until I could stand it no longer. As a result I am too Evangelical for many and too Catholic for many others. And I fervently look forward to the time when these labels disappear.