EPISCOPAL POLITY

There has been a lot of discussion - perhaps too much - in the blogosphere about the polity of the Episcopal Church in the United States, and I have added to that discussion by posting comments on other blogs. Perhaps the best way to explain my own understanding of the situation is with a little history.

Before the War of Indepedence, the Church of England congregations in the colonies were under the authority of the Bishop of London. During the war, some of the colonial clergy remained loyal to the King, including Samuel Seabury. After King George's army lost the war, there was work to be done - reconciling clergy and laity who had been on opposite sides, and organizing an indpendent Church. There was nothing inevitable about the decisions that led to the formation of Dioceses and the election and consecration of Bishops. A congregational polity was common enough and was an option that wasn't chosen. Instead, those first Episcopalians chose to organize their congregations into Dioceses and their Dioceses into the Episcopal Church.

Both decisions involved a surrender of some autonomy to the larger body. Congregations could, in many places, be legally incorporated, but that did give them complete freedom in the ordering of their worship, common life, and ministry. Bishops had to approved the calling of clergy - and in many places and at many times, the Bishop decided which clergy were serve which congregation. Dioceses could be incorporated, but that did give them complete freedom. The General Convention approved the Book of Common Prayer, the only book for most of the Episcopal Church's history that was authorized for public worship. The General Convention also enacted Canons that regulated many aspects of Diocesan and congregational life, from the approval of candidates for ordination to the requirement that financial records be audited each year.

In order to enjoy the benefits of being part of the Episcopal Church, congregations and Dioceses have surrendered some of the autonomy that they could have enjoyed had they chosen another polity. Imagine how an Independent Baptist might view the way in which Episccopal congregations call clergy - you mean the Bishop has to approve? - or the way Dioceses elect a Bishop - you mean Bishops and Standing Committees who might never have visited your Diocese have to consent to the election? - or our use of the Book of Common Prayer and the Lectionary.

We have made an important choice, one that has an impact on so many aspects of our life together, a choice that I think was a very good one. Now there are those who argue, not that the choice wasn't made, but about what that choice means. They argue that the Diocese is sovereign and that in choosing to be in union the General Convention, Dioceses did not surrender any significant autonomy. Given the General Convention's authority to enact canons that govern so many essential aspects of the life of a Diocese, it seems pure foolishness to assert that Dioceses are sovereign and that the General Convention isn't.

We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us

Over at his blog Preludium, Mark Harris has a very thougthful post, The Global Warming of Fear and Hate: Anti-Semitism, Homophobia and Xenophobia.

A central point of that post is that in difficult times folks often look for someone to blame and, in the history of the West, the someone is quite often the Jews. I find Mark's post echoing some thoughts that I have had the past few days about the economic mess in this country. From some quarters we are hearing warnings about "class warfare," as if anyone commenting about the widening income gap in the USA was inciting a riot. From others we hear strong words of condemnation for Wall Street villains, as if the rest of us had no responsibility for the maintaining of our over-consuming culture.

Criticism, including self-criticism, is called for, but not condemnation, including self-condemnation. One of the joys of living in grace is that we are free to look honestly at our own sins and the sins of others. We have been - are being - forgiven and transformed, and do not stand condemned.

The Message About the Cross

Seemingly by accident one afternoon during my sabbatical, I came across a book by one of my favorite theologians, Douglas John Hall, now Professor Emeritus of McGill University. Years ago I had read Lighten Our Darkness: Toward an Indigenous Theology of the Cross. The book that I found is The Cross in Our Context: Jesus and the Suffering World. As I thumbed through the book, an italicized passage caught my eye:

The theology of the cross, which may be stimulatetd (as we have seen) by a certain kind of anthropoligical understanding, is nevertheless first of all a statement about God, and what it says about God is not that God thinks humankind so wretched that it deserves death and hell, but that God thinks humankind and the whole creation so good, so beautiful, so precious on its intention and its potentiality, that its actualization, its fulfillment, its redemption is worth dying for.

Having set as one of my sabbatical projects studying Atonement theology, finding Hall's book and this particular passage seemed not accidental , but providential. I had long thought that in much of what I heard in sermons or read in books there was an underlying assumption that God's basic attitude towards humankind was wrath and anger and not love.

However we describe the atonement, whichever theologian we prefer, whether Alselm of Canterbury or Gustav Aulen or James Alison, if we miss the point that Hall makes we are missing the boat. It is all about God's love.

Unlearning

When Peter rebuked Jesus for saying "that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again" he was expressing a very common understanding of the Messiah, one that he had learned. Unlearning things like that is often the work of a lifetime. All of us have ideas about life that we have learned, and some of these ideas need to be unlearned.

In writing about the call of Abraham in the Letter to the Romans, Paul characterizes Abraham's body as being "as good as dead." How often do we think of the older members of our communities as being no longer capable of contributing anything of value? Is that an idea about older people that we need to unlearn?

It seems that it took Peter a long time to unlearn his ideas about the Messiah, but he needed the shock of Jesus' rebuke - "Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things." - to jumpstart the unlearning. Perhaps Lent can be a time when I let God jumpstart the unlearning that I need to do in my life.

The Presiding Bishop on Varied Understandings

Much of the controversy in the Anglican Communion is at its core about how we interpret Scripture. There are some who believe that the only acceptable interpretations are what Gray Temple calls "canoical interpretations," interpretations that have been given the authority of Scripture itself. Listening to different voices, appreciating how sisters and brother look at Scripture different lenses is challenging, but I believe that is what God is calling us to do.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, addresses this challenge in Varied understandings: Different lenses provide different views of Scripture.