Replies

But the Episcopal Church is anything but democratic. Oligarchic would be more accurate.

Actually, in many ways the governance of the Episcopal Church falls somewhere between the US Constitution and the Articles of Confederation. Individual dioceses enjoy a great deal of latitude in their operations ... there is very little in the way of central control within the Episcopal Church. Within each diocese, however, the bishop does exert a great deal of control over how things operate; he does not, however, enjoy unlimited power; instead, he is bound to operate within a somewhat "republican" system.

The Diocesan and National Constitutions and Canons are written and approved in the context of the annual Diocesan Conventions, and by the national General Convention, which occurs every three years.

These operate very similar to the operation of the US House and Senate. Perhaps Commons and Lords is a better description of the differentiation -- at the Diocesan level, the representation is divided between lay and clergy; and at the General Convention there are the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops. Aside from the criteria for membership, however, the operation is more along the lines of the American political system.

The weakness of this system is that the theological direction of the church is subject to exactly the same kinds of political manipulation that we can recognize in secular politics. As in secular politics, so too with the Episcopal Church: those who control the bureaucracy and who go to the meetings, are those who control the agenda. Those who merely show up to vote, have generally lost before they even knew something was afoot.

At both the national and diocesan level, the bureaucracy of the Episcopal Church (and other mainstream denominations) tends to be controlled by those who are on the political left. It is no accident that agendas of the mainstream denominations are often indistinguishable from those of the secular political left. It all comes straight out of Saul Alinksy.

The power structure of the Roman Catholic Church is much more concentrated in its bishops, archbishops, etc. Democratic processes and bureaucratic control are much less effective in that environment -- the hierachy is empowered to say "no," without having to deal with the fuss and bother of conventions, legislation, and the like. The RC approach also has its weaknesses, of course -- when power is concentrated, it can be abused.

I think Steenson's response is representative of a fairly widespread view within the Anglican Communion these days -- that most or all of the current turmoil could have been avoided had there been some one, orthodox, person who was empowered to slap down those provinces and dioceses that departed from the traditional teachings of the church.

On the other hand, that does not address the real problem, which is not a lack of hierarchy, but rather a loss of focus on our purpose and role as a Church.

We conservatives/traditionalists are probably more to blame than anyone for the present state of the church. Just as in secular politics, we became complacent in our theology, failed to address real injustices, and also failed to account for the fact that people's views of the world have changed over time. We're the ones who created and propagated the weaknesses; the revisionists are the ones who have figured out how to take advantage of our errors.

Moreover, we are often guilty of surrendering rather than to appear "mean;" and conversely when we do fight, our actions and words are frequently so ugly that we're usually our own worst enemies.

There's no easy answer -- and I have to say that, although it was no doubt a very difficult decision personally, I think Bp. Steenson is just taking the easy way out.