Episcopal? Presbyterian? Conciliar? Democratic?
A topic of interest has arisen from our latest blog comments of which may be best pursued as its own blog, so as not to take away from the previous topic of Women in Ministry. Also, on our sister blog, Sacramental Nazarenes, this same idea has found its way to the fore on the most recent stream of comments. So here we go. New topic.
It has occurred to me that our form of ecclesial government in the Church of the Nazarene is one that has been formed out of a conglomerate of traditions. We claim Anglican, Methodist, and Pentecostal heritages, but from these different traditions, where did we come up with our structured form of government? From what I gather, we basically have a purely democratic form of government, strikingly similar to the national government of the United States of America. Representation, Elections, Majority Rules, etc.
Here are some questions: Is this form of government biblical/adequate/universal? Does it promote equality? Does it really represent the majority of its 'constituents' (keep in mind the majority of Nazarenes now live outside the USA)? In light of the recent observations we have made, does it promote clerical authority or popular opinion? And finally, does it promote community or individualism? (for those modern, post-modern debaters out there)
I've expressed a bit of my view on the last blog's comments. What are yours?
Joseph
It has occurred to me that our form of ecclesial government in the Church of the Nazarene is one that has been formed out of a conglomerate of traditions. We claim Anglican, Methodist, and Pentecostal heritages, but from these different traditions, where did we come up with our structured form of government? From what I gather, we basically have a purely democratic form of government, strikingly similar to the national government of the United States of America. Representation, Elections, Majority Rules, etc.
Here are some questions: Is this form of government biblical/adequate/universal? Does it promote equality? Does it really represent the majority of its 'constituents' (keep in mind the majority of Nazarenes now live outside the USA)? In light of the recent observations we have made, does it promote clerical authority or popular opinion? And finally, does it promote community or individualism? (for those modern, post-modern debaters out there)
I've expressed a bit of my view on the last blog's comments. What are yours?
Joseph
posted by Joseph | 9:54 AM
3 Comments:
I wouldn't claim to fully understand all the various "styles" of church government, but I was able to participate in the Episcopal church in Scotland for a few years, during which time I also observed the Presbyterian Kirk in action as well. (I was involved in the Scottish Episcopal Church, which is part of the Anglican communion, while the "national" Church of Scotland is very Knox-influenced Presby.) So I have some practical knowledge of a few of the major approaches, and a lifetime of dealing with the COTN (even if I have NOT yet taken "History and Polity of the COTN" to satisfy ordination requirements).
I have come to characterize - and I think it's fairly observable - the COTN as a hybrid of a kind of watered-down Episcopacy on the one hand, and a congregationalist paradigm on the other. It is a government that has evolved in practice and to address pragmatic needs and concerns - I suspect with minimal theological or biblical reflection as to its soundness.
I find our substitution of secular and even corporate terminology for traditional ecclesiastical words and titles dreadful: "superintendent" for bishop (and consequently "general superintendent" for archbishop) ..."district" for diocese, "zone" for parish (sort of). There is a clear relationship here, I think, to the same anti-clerical strain that led away from traditional priestly garb toward the uniform of the CEO (expensive suits, flashy ties, nice shoes...and of course you've gotta have the briefcase and car to match!), and has now led to even further leveling ("dumbing down"?) of our vesture to the point that if you're a pastor who insists on wearing a suit and tie rather than jeans and t-shirts, you're criticized as being hierarchical or stuffy or irrelevant or otherwise outmoded. (Give me a nice black Wesley gown and colored stole any day...)
Sorry, bit of a rabbit trail there...but to address the specific question, I don't think there is a wealth theological or biblical foundation to support our church polity. On the other hand, while I might critique aspects of it and certainly our terminology, I don't think there is much of an argument against it, at least if you try to argue within the terms of those who support it entirely. I think there is a huge case to be made for a stronger, more traditional episcopacy, but the presuppositions that I would ground this in - unity, sacramentality, liturgy, e.g. - would be quickly dismissed by my hypothetical opponent.
The congregationalist thread in the motley tapestry of our tradition is always going to incline us toward democratic process and significant plurality/variety from church to church - the kind of anything goes, what-works-for-you-might-not-work-for-us, doin'-our-own-thing that we should be very suspicious of. To address a couple of your specific questions: it absolutely does not represent the majority of its constituents adequately, and it absolutely DOES promote individualism. And if lex orandi, lex credendi - if praxis comes before theoria, liturgy before theology, practice before belief - we should be very concerned by this.
What I might add to this blog pertains to Wesley, but not necessarily Methodism. At one of the early Methodist conferences in the 1760s it was decided that J. Wesley must be present or send a representative in his place to preside. A tea spoon of his ambition for power and maybe a smidge of his Royalist political views and that equals components for a good ole bowl of tyrannical stew... Okay, tyrant is too harsh. (Though, you may be surprised that rumors circulated both from without and from within Methodism that Wesley once requested the alleged Greek Bishop Erasmus to ordain him Bishop. I have no idea what that does to apostolic succession.)
Only in the absence of a strong leader (William Grimshaw,John Fletcher had died, and his brother Charles had died) did the leadership in Wesleyan Methodism become electoral. Once it became democratic, no one person ever held that kind of positional power. No, not Asbury even in America. No, not Jabez Bunting in Victorian Methodism. So, I at least might offer that Wesley's Methodism was most certainly not democratic- though all Methodism that followed was and is.
Grace and Peace,
David Stark
I showed the movie "The Mission" to my students recently, (great movie, but a little long, probably wouldn't do that again) and there is a great scene between Liam Neeson and Jeremy Irons. Neeson's character, a Jesuit priest approaches Irons, the head priest, to express concern over a pentance that Robert DeNiro's character is having to go through. Neeson says "I think he's had enough and the rest of the brothers agree." Irons reminds him "you're part of an order not a democracy."
I'm not sure that I would go so far as advocating an order in the CON, but I definitely think that we are in serious need of more centralized authority, or at the very least we need to take the authority that is already in place more seriously.
Brannon, it's good to hear from you again. I thought you had a great observation about our choice of corporate language, i.e. superintendent, rather than more traditional ecclesial language, i.e. bishop. I never ceased to be amazed at our protestant, particularly American protestant, refusal to be associated with anything remotely associated with the Catholic church.
While I don't think that the bishop/superintendent/etc. should have total authority (to be honest I have no desire to be appointed or reappointed at the whim of a bishop), I think it could only benefit our tradition if our District Superintendents, GS, and even local pastors, could "enforce the manual" (for lack of a better term) or simply, and this is scary to think about, preach the gospel without fear of being voted out of office.
And David, you make a great point too. (And it's good to hear from you as well. Long time no see) If an ecclesiastical democracy is not where our tradition stems from then why continue to perpetuate it?
Just a random thought, would Paul, who laid down the foundation of both our theology and church structure been able to do so if his letters first had to be put to a vote? And if their content did have to be voted on what would the New Testament/faith look like? Scary thought. (Yes, obviously there was a vote as to which books/letters were included in the canon. I am referring to the sense of authority, and given authority, which he had to write with in the first place and the authority that those letters came to have as a result. No voting there.)
Post a Comment
<< Home