Thread: Democracy and the Church Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023919

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
Arising from discussion about the next Archbishop of Canterbury, I have been thinking a lot about the place that "the votes of the people" could or should play in the appointment of church leaders.

Let me be upfront here. Speaking as an Anglican, I would be very happy to see a much greater role for the ordinary church members in the choosing of bishops and even archbishops, though some form of voting. Among my reasons are:

1. The appointment of bishops would start to reflect more where the "real C of E" is, rather than the tortuous tribal games that tend to go on in the corridors of power. I would tend to trust the instincts and insights of ordinary Anglicans - certainly more so than than the people who get into the select committees that make these decisions now.

2. The present secretive and labyrinthine process is increasingly out of step with a society that is becoming more open in its dealings. The world around us just cannot comprehend a Church that keeps its major decisions so hidden. And I do think that this is cause for the C of E to lose what little credibility it still has in the wider population.

One thing I want to make clear from the outset is that I do not see this as being a question of "the votes of people versus the work of the Spirit". The Spirit can work just as easily (if not more easily) through the prayerful votes of ordinary church members as though the machinations of an elite few.

But I don't want this to be a debate just about the C of E. What about other denominations and groupings? How big or little a part does democracy play in key appointments? How much of a part SHOULD it play?

(For the moment, I would like to focus more on the general question of WHETHER democractic principles should play a greater role, rather than the detailed discussion of HOW this might happen.
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
Seems to me almost all systems are flawed, probably all of them. When you have such a large and unwieldy organisation as the CofE - with the leader being a local bishop, an area archbishop, a national moral authority, an academic and the leader of a world religion at the same time some kind of representative democracy is as good as you can expect.

In smaller churches, more direct democracy rules. Other systems have been tried - such as the Moravians drawing lots - but they seldom stand the test of time.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
One thing I want to make clear from the outset is that I do not see this as being a question of "the votes of people versus the work of the Spirit". The Spirit can work just as easily (if not more easily) through the prayerful votes of ordinary church members as though the machinations of an elite few.

And how exactly do you ensure that the votes are prayerful ones? Are you going to put a question on the ballot paper, asking people to confirm that they prayed before ticking the box?

Then are you going to ask them if they prayed properly?
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :
 
I believe, in some jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church, it used to be a tradition that a bishop was not considered fully enthroned until the congregation publicly acclaimed him. I also believe that, at times, that positive public acclamation was not forthcoming. Sadly, the negative reaction, in recent years, had no practical effect.

An interesting precedent?
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And how exactly do you ensure that the votes are prayerful ones? Are you going to put a question on the ballot paper, asking people to confirm that they prayed before ticking the box?

Then are you going to ask them if they prayed properly?

The tradition in at least one Oxbridge college is or used to be until recently that the votes for the new head of the college were placed on the altar of the chapel, after the fellows had stopped to 'pray' before making their vote...
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
But bishops are already elected, by the dean and chapter. This is the mechanism as described by wikipaedia. So, as indicated by the bit I've emboldened, it's totally democratic already.
quote:
The crown thereupon grants to the dean and chapter its licence under the great seal to elect a new bishop, accompanied by a letter missive containing the name of the person whom the dean and chapter are to elect. This is also published in the London Gazette within a few days of issue. The dean and chapter are thereupon bound to elect the person so named by the crown within twelve days, in default of which the crown is empowered by the statute to nominate by letters patent such person as it may think fit, to the vacant bishopric.

 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
In our (Baptist & Congregational) church, all appointments have to be agreed by the church meeting. This works in different ways: I had to be "voted on" by the meeting to become their minister (which, foolishly, they did) but, as far as I'm aware, that's it, that doesn't have to take place again (presumably unless the church feels there's a need to). The officers (Treasurer and Secretary) have to be re-elected every three years as do the Deacons (although the latter can only stand for two consecutive three-year terms). Other appointments are voted on together at the AGM, unless a vacancy arises during the year when they be voted on as and when the need arises.

I say "voted on" because that's the way we do it, which is a democratic way of doing it (in theory). And it's nice and clear for the minutes of the meeting. But I know there's been debates about whether votes are the best way to make these decisions given that the aim isn't simply to take the majority opinion, but to discern the will of God. So, much of the literature (at least from the Baptist side) says that this isn't "democratic" first and foremost (although that's a happy result of it), but theocratic in the sense that the church together is trying to discern and express the will of God which, we believe, we do best by discussing and deciding together, rather than one person or a small group of people deciding (phew! Got there in the end!).

All of which leads me on to orfeo's point:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And how exactly do you ensure that the votes are prayerful ones? Are you going to put a question on the ballot paper, asking people to confirm that they prayed before ticking the box?

Then are you going to ask them if they prayed properly?

To which I can only say: [Confused]

I really don't get the issue here. What's wrong with hoping people have prayed and are praying when they vote in a church context or, even better, providing space and guidance to help them do so? I (genuinely) don't get what you're getting at, what the problem is. I do hope people pray before we take a vote at a church meeting; I hope people realise what it is we're doing - not just expressing personal preference but trying to hear from God. I wouldn't dream of going round and checking up on people to see if they had and I wouldn't say "you can only vote if you've prayed". But I don't see what's wrong with suggesting that people can and should pray and then take part in the decision making process and express what they feel is right - even if it goes against the majority or the minister's view (especially so in the latter case).
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And how exactly do you ensure that the votes are prayerful ones?

How do you ensure that the decision is a prayerful one under any system?
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Oscar the Grouch

But a democratically chosen Archbishop of Canterbury wouldn't be chosen just by the CofE alone, but by the whole Anglican Communion. You might end up with a leader that the British people would find very hard to accept culturally. Indeed, now I think about it, I'm surprised that the worldwide Anglican Communion is so willing to accept that the Archbishop of Canterbury must always be British. (I assume this is more of a custom than a rule.) Even John Sentamu is only in the running because he's long been based in the UK and is probably a British citizen.

And how would the CofE decide who was a 'member', for voting purposes, and who wasn't? The concept of membership, so I've read, is quite hazy in the CofE. By defining this more sharply, the CofE would be forced to create a more defined in-group, which seems to be against their inclinations. Maybe it's different elsewhere in the Anglican Communion, where Anglicanism isn't part of the establishment.

The alternative outcome, e.g. in the Swedish Lutheran Church, is a situation where non-churchgoing atheists are able to gain influence by being eligible to sit on church boards and vote on what the Church should do. This is because the notion of membership is so tolerant that it involves almost anyone.

In a small denomination where everyone is seriously committed or else they're out of the door, the idea of who should vote is probably less difficult to establish. (Although some small denominations aren't at all democratic, as we know.)
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
Christianity used to follow the ancient "master - student" system - as most religions still do. Setting aside the whole issue of sacraments, the reason why the faithful do not get to elect who is to be bishop is the same reason why children do not get to elect who is to be teacher, university students do not get to elect who is to be professor, apprentices do not get to elect who is to be master craftsman, martial arts students do not get to elect who is to be master of their style, etc. The faithful are simply not in a position to do so. Their primary role is to learn from the people who are supposed to know better. If at all, the classical Christian picture of the sheep and the shepherd points to an even less active role.

This does not mean that there is no choice. However, the choice is whom to follow. The student has to select his master, and carefully so. What school to attend? What university to go to? What craft to learn where? What martial art to train? And likewise, what religion to follow under whom? Once upon a time this choice was highly restricted in our parts, but we do not live in Christendom any longer. Not only is it easy to switch parishes, but one can switch denominations and even religions quite easily now. Ironically then, secular modernity has re-introduced a proper freedom to traditional Christianity.

The idea of choosing to follow a master is deeply ingrained in Christianity. An essential part of the ancient system in a practical sense is the raising up of "master students", by choice of the "master", who eventually take over from the "master" and perpetuate his legacy - and that to a large extent by raising up new "master students" themselves. This is how it always had worked in antiquity, and this is hence of course also what we see in Christianity. And very clearly so in the New Testament. The idea that somehow this perfectly usual process was intended to stop with the selection of the apostles is really deeply anachronistic.

Anyhow, the core move of the Reformation, for better or worse, was to cut this self-perpetuating chain down to "Master -> students", where now it was supposed to be just Jesus Christ Himself as the Master from which all learn. Sounds great, of course, but given the lack of physical presence of that Master it meant that the learning now had to come exclusively from a book, the book. So the basic idea of Protestantism is the equivalent of "who needs professors if we have textbooks" or "who needs martial arts masters if we have training videos".

Given this new approach then, there is no need for "masters" in the old sense. "Bishops" or "Elders" may now have a representative role in organizing the community, and perhaps wield authority by virtue of this role, but they are not authoritative teachers from whom the faithful must learn. But then their relationship to the faithful becomes more a "political" one. And at this point in my opinion it becomes clear that some kind of (representative) democracy is the best (least bad) way forward.

So to ask for democracy in traditional Christianity, and to deny it in reformed Christianity, is to misunderstand the role of teaching authority. IMHO.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
I believe, in some jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church, it used to be a tradition that a bishop was not considered fully enthroned until the congregation publicly acclaimed him. I also believe that, at times, that positive public acclamation was not forthcoming. Sadly, the negative reaction, in recent years, had no practical effect.

That's exactly what the Orthodox priest who preached to us on Sunday said. Except that he said that without the assent there is no ordination.
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Oscar the Grouch

And how would the CofE decide who was a 'member', for voting purposes, and who wasn't? The concept of membership, so I've read, is quite hazy in the CofE. By defining this more sharply, the CofE would be forced to create a more defined in-group, which seems to be against their inclinations.

Actually, in the CofE voting membership is well defined. Each parish has a council - the PCC - which is elected. Those eligible to vote are those who have placed themselves on the Electoral Roll for the parish. The qualifications for being on that roll are not great. You need to be baptised, over 16 years of age and either living in the parish, or a regular worshipper.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Christianity used to follow the ancient "master - student" system - as most religions still do. Setting aside the whole issue of sacraments, the reason why the faithful do not get to elect who is to be bishop is the same reason why children do not get to elect who is to be teacher, university students do not get to elect who is to be professor, apprentices do not get to elect who is to be master craftsman, martial arts students do not get to elect who is to be master of their style, etc...

This does not mean that there is no choice. However, the choice is whom to follow. The student has to select his master, and carefully so.

Very enlightening explanation! Thank you.

Another aspect of this is that whereas civil government can rightly be government of the people, by the people and for the people, the church is a particular entity that is formally governed by God through His Holy Scriptures. The clergy is to govern the church not from their own ideas but from what the Scriptures authorize.

So whereas civil government is obligated to lead the people according to the accepted cultural norms of the area governed, the church is often in a position of opposing cultural norms. This makes its leadership obligations very different.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But a democratically chosen Archbishop of Canterbury wouldn't be chosen just by the CofE alone, but by the whole Anglican Communion.

Why? It would either be just the diocese of Canterbury that would vote, or England south of Yorkshire. There's no reason why anybody else should have any say in this.
quote:
The alternative outcome, e.g. in the Swedish Lutheran Church, is a situation where non-churchgoing atheists are able to gain influence by being eligible to sit on church boards and vote on what the Church should do. This is because the notion of membership is so tolerant that it involves almost anyone.
I've heard something similar but does any shipmate know whether this is actually the case? If so, I'd suspect it would not be because of tolerance, so much as that the Swedish church is so erastian that there's no real sense of it's being anything other than co-terminous with the state and being Swedish.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Oscar the Grouch

And how would the CofE decide who was a 'member', for voting purposes, and who wasn't? The concept of membership, so I've read, is quite hazy in the CofE. By defining this more sharply, the CofE would be forced to create a more defined in-group, which seems to be against their inclinations.

Actually, in the CofE voting membership is well defined. Each parish has a council - the PCC - which is elected. Those eligible to vote are those who have placed themselves on the Electoral Roll for the parish. The qualifications for being on that roll are not great. You need to be baptised, over 16 years of age and either living in the parish, or a regular worshipper.
I understand this. But the OP was about whether individuals should be given more say in who their leaders are.

Enoch

I see what you mean about the Archbishops of Canterbury, but the reality is that the remit of the post stretches far beyond what happens in Canterbury or in the South of England.

The Baptists have a system whereby each congregation chooses its pastor rather than having one appointed to them from outside. This must have certain advantages, I imagine. Of course, Baptists don't have to share their pastors with other churches, as Anglicans and Methodists often have to do.

As for the Swedish Lutheran Church, things might have changed in recent years, because they've been disestablished. This article has an interesting section on the Swedish Lutherans as they were at least until the turn of the 21st c. See pp. 237-239:

http://www.soc.washington.edu/users/burstein/Stark%20Secularization.pdf
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
There are several challenges in electing bishops democratically. The first is defining who is eligible to vote-- already addressed-- (tangent-- I gather that, in Sweden, secular party politics have their role in episcopal elections, but perhaps someone has direct knowledge of this??), but the real challenge is how they would identify nominees and get toknow them to assess their worth.

The other real challenge is realizing that campaigns are going to happen and that, with larger dioceses (as one sees in England) this means time and money. Even a round of meetings with deanery chapters or synods would take weeks from a nominee's time, and cost at the very least hundreds of pounds in travelling expenses. Few clerical budgets could take the schedule and cost implications and so the money would then start coming from donors or patrons.

More seriously, the only likely nominees would be the ones who are interested in higher office-- a self-selecting category which may not give us the best for the job. Having seen how this works in Canada and the US, I sometimes wonder if the Coptic approach of choosing a candidate by lot is not the best.

In the current situation, the whole question could be returned to the cathedral chapter in Canterbury by simply not sending the nomination letter along with the congé d'élire (licence to elect). For future vacancies, cathedral chapters could be reconstituted to include lay representatives or simply, lay canons could be appointed, as canons need not technically be ordained.

I can't help but think again of the example of S Ambrose of Milan, when the rowdy crowd in the cathedral insists on a candidate, and order can only be restored by bowing to their will. While one cannot think of a more unsuitable bishop-elect than an unbaptized catechumen who happens to be sent by the authorities to quell the disturbance, the choice served the Milanese well. Perhaps we should look at this more carefully.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
But I don't want this to be a debate just about the C of E. What about other denominations and groupings? How big or little a part does democracy play in key appointments? How much of a part SHOULD it play?

My Lutheran denom in America does it fairly simply. Individual congregations send representatives to the synod (=diocesan) assembly. Those representatives do the voting, taking however many rounds needed until the number is reduced to one. A pastor on the synod's roster will be elected bishop. We have term limits, too, and our term limit isn't "life or retirement."

It would have to be different with the Archbishop of Canterbury, but I do suspect there would be far less politicking about episcopal appointments in Anglicanism if it were a requirement that the candidate be part of the diocese for X amount of time before being eligible. There seems to be too many ladder-climbers who are willing to park in any old cathedra.
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
I believe, in some jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church, it used to be a tradition that a bishop was not considered fully enthroned until the congregation publicly acclaimed him. I also believe that, at times, that positive public acclamation was not forthcoming. Sadly, the negative reaction, in recent years, had no practical effect.

That's exactly what the Orthodox priest who preached to us on Sunday said. Except that he said that without the assent there is no ordination.
Really? Because, according to Kallistos Ware in "Orthodoxy", it had happened last century in dioceses of the Ecumenical Patriarchate with no practical effect.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Oscar the Grouch

But a democratically chosen Archbishop of Canterbury wouldn't be chosen just by the CofE alone, but by the whole Anglican Communion. You might end up with a leader that the British people would find very hard to accept culturally. Indeed, now I think about it, I'm surprised that the worldwide Anglican Communion is so willing to accept that the Archbishop of Canterbury must always be British. (I assume this is more of a custom than a rule.) Even John Sentamu is only in the running because he's long been based in the UK and is probably a British citizen.

And how would the CofE decide who was a 'member', for voting purposes, and who wasn't? The concept of membership, so I've read, is quite hazy in the CofE. By defining this more sharply, the CofE would be forced to create a more defined in-group, which seems to be against their inclinations. Maybe it's different elsewhere in the Anglican Communion, where Anglicanism isn't part of the establishment.

The alternative outcome, e.g. in the Swedish Lutheran Church, is a situation where non-churchgoing atheists are able to gain influence by being eligible to sit on church boards and vote on what the Church should do. This is because the notion of membership is so tolerant that it involves almost anyone.

In a small denomination where everyone is seriously committed or else they're out of the door, the idea of who should vote is probably less difficult to establish. (Although some small denominations aren't at all democratic, as we know.)

I would put to one side any attempt to make the election of an Archbishop of Canterbury a worldwide election. The ABC should be appointed as the Primate of All England. This nonsense about becoming a quasi-papal figure for all Anglicanism should be knocked on the head. We are - or should be - a family of churches. I wouldn't dream of trying to influence the appointment of an archbishop (or equivalent) in the US, Canada, or Nigeria or wherever. And the reverse should apply.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The faithful are simply not in a position to do so. Their primary role is to learn from the people who are supposed to know better.

I find this kind of attitude deeply depressing and rather offensive. "The faithful" are not just plebs to be ordered about by their "betters".
 
Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :
 
I think you are quite correct, OTG, the Archbishop of Canterbury is the Primate of All England and the appointment is primarily an English one and quite vital to the continued wellbeing and survival of the C of E.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I find this kind of attitude deeply depressing and rather offensive. "The faithful" are not just plebs to be ordered about by their "betters".

First, you rip a sentence out of context here, a context that simply cannot be summarized as you do. Second, I've made an explicit distinction concerning "traditional" and "reformed" Christianity, which you simply ignore. Third, I explicitly made the point that "reformed" Christianity has politicized the relationship between "overseers" and faithful.

Unsurprisingly then, you turn this into an essentially political question, with your talk of plebs and ordering them around. This may be entirely appropriate for your style of Christianity, but you need to realize that this is just not an appropriate perspective for other styles of Christianity, which follow the "learning from a (human) master" model. Furthermore, you need to realize that this model was historically dominant and that it is simply anachronistic to look at Christian history from your current perspective. You can of course still claim that your style of Christianity is "better", and I will happily argue against that. But this argument will never get anywhere unless you acknowledge where your opponents are actually coming from.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Unsurprisingly then, you turn this into an essentially political question

On a thread entitled "Democracy and the Church"? Perish the thought!
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The faithful are simply not in a position to do so. Their primary role is to learn from the people who are supposed to know better.

I find this kind of attitude deeply depressing and rather offensive. "The faithful" are not just plebs to be ordered about by their "betters".
It might be why IngoB is a Catholic and you (and me) aren't. [Biased]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I would put to one side any attempt to make the election of an Archbishop of Canterbury a worldwide election. The ABC should be appointed as the Primate of All England. This nonsense about becoming a quasi-papal figure for all Anglicanism should be knocked on the head. We are - or should be - a family of churches. I wouldn't dream of trying to influence the appointment of an archbishop (or equivalent) in the US, Canada, or Nigeria or wherever. And the reverse should apply.

I'm not an Anglican, so I wouldn't tell Anglicans what to do. But as an outsider, I often read about how the ABofC is expected to speak out for or against what Anglicans around the world are doing. It seems to me that if this person is appointed without regard to worldwide Anglicanism, then it ill-behoves him to make public statements on these issues. Or rather, he can say what he likes, but he can hardly expect anyone else to pay much attention.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It seems to me that if this person is appointed without regard to worldwide Anglicanism, then it ill-behoves him to make public statements on these issues.

I'm not sure he does make personal public statements about worldwide Anglicanism on these contentious issues. He says what he has been authorised to say by what few worldwide bodies there are, such as the Primates meetings and the Lambeth Conferences. He's got mroe freedomn in England, but even then he tneds to restrict himself to things he thinks really do represent "the mind of the church".

Isn't that part of the reason why the current ABC has been so widely vilified by some "liberal catholics" you might have expected to support him? (Including some on posting on this site). In Wales he seemed to them like one of their own but when he got to Canterbury they felt as if he changed sides on some issues.

As for appointment from the whole Anglican Communion, even if it was a good idea (I'm not sure it is, wouldn't it make it even more likely that an ABC who was less conscientious than our recent ones would try to act like some sort of Protestant Pope?) I think the Establishment woudl make that difficult. The ABC, and a handful of other English bishops get free seats in Parliament. Its hard to imagine the Briish government giving the right to appoint them to foreigners. So we'd need to deal with that first.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
ken

He's vilified by liberals, but isn't he also criticised by evangelicals for being too weak?

As we've said before, the job seems to be basically impossible. The political issue you've raised, i.e. seats in the Houses of Parliament, only adds to that feeling. The post is political, which comes with its own restrictions, and once in post the man has to satisfy too many different constituencies to be effective. More democracy would only add to the church's problems!
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Foreigners have been appointed to the Lords over the years and even more have succeeded to hereditary seats. The challenge would be more to a foreigner being appointed to the Lords as they (and presumably their country of citizenship) would have to be comfortable with the Oath of Allegiance. Citizens of some republics would likely be OK with it (e.g. Trinidad, Malta) while others (USA) might not be. In the past, some Commonwealth monarchies (Canada, Oz) have withheld their consent.

There are, as well, all sorts of legal anomalies here, as Irish are not foreigners in the law of the UK. However, Ken might be right in that British governments might not want to make those appointments.

At least a (e.g.) Rwandan or Polynesian prelate would get a few years' free ride as they learned the ropes. There have been plenty of non-English archbishops, beginning with SS Augustine and Theodore, and they might have left notes or even a powerpoint presentation on how to deal with the English faithful.

[ 04. October 2012, 19:07: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... Third, I explicitly made the point that "reformed" Christianity has politicized the relationship between "overseers" and faithful. ...

I hesitate to say this IngoB, but this seems as signal a failing of the other large branch of Western Christianity, if not more so. It may have taken the opposite turn at the Reformation, but this failing seems to have taken root so deeply in the west well before that, that both branches of the western church have taken it for granted.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:

As for appointment from the whole Anglican Communion, even if it was a good idea (I'm not sure it is, wouldn't it make it even more likely that an ABC who was less conscientious than our recent ones would try to act like some sort of Protestant Pope?) I think the Establishment would make that difficult. The ABC, and a handful of other English bishops get free seats in Parliament. Its hard to imagine the British government giving the right to appoint them to foreigners. So we'd need to deal with that first.

Speaking as an English person, I do not think I would be able to give an Archbishop who had been chosen for me by a college of foreigners, however well meaning, the sort of respect that as my Primate, I ought to be willing to accord him.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
I'll defer to SPK once he reads all this, but it is my understanding that the United Church of Canada has had a fairly thorough democratic process for the election of the equivalent of synod delegates, and the every-three-year election of the Moderator.

This has worked adequately since 1925, when the merger of Methodist, Presbyterian and other churches produced the UNITED Church of Canada.

There are always people who object to the decisions made by the elected legislative bodies of that church, but the issues are debated at length in public, and the votes are public. The solution to one's dissatisfaction with a given decision is to actually take part in the system, not to sit outside crying "Foul!"

The UCC were among the first in Canada to take up the issues of OoW, LGBT rights, SSMs, the Residential Schools issue and other aboriginal concerns, and many other issues, all of which have left disgruntled people who "can't understand why we are doing this", but, hey, that's democracy for you. Sometimes people actually discuss and agree on stuff- which will never satisfy those who prefer occasionally-benign dictatorships.
 
Posted by Ondergard (# 9324) on :
 
The Methodist Church, despite Jabez Bunting's sentiments back in the early 19th century ("Methodism hates democracy as it hates sin!") has always prided itself on being democratic in its choosing of the President of Conference, because the whole church elects Church Council members, who elect representatives to Circuit Meeting, who elect representatives to District Synod, who elect representatives to the Methodist Conference, who elect the President.

However, the District Chairs are selected by nomination - the "job" is advertised, presbyters are nominated (in reality this means the ambitious get their mates to nominate them), and then a non-elected shadowy committee "short-list" - which is code for "eliminating at an early stage those who are not "People Like Us"" - and then interview the remaining candidates. The winner gets presented to Synod as "their" nominee, they are automatically endorsed, and Conference rubber stamps them.

It used to be that if someone didn't like the candidate presented to Synod, another candidate could be nominated from the floor of Synod, but the Conference apparatchiks were horrified one year by the practical outcome of that process. Someone who had been given the imprimatur to such an extent that he had gone round telling his mates and family that he was the new Chair of the ------- District, but got then got jocked off at Synod and an alternative was nominated from the floor of Synod.

The Conference manipulators managed to get that possibility removed from the process, so all Chairs are now pretty much chosen by the Inner Circle but given the veneer of a democracy that Jabez's successors actually hold in equal contempt.

The irony is that the only Officer of the Conference who is actually elected by anything approximating democracy is in fact pretty much a powerless annual figurehead.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I would put to one side any attempt to make the election of an Archbishop of Canterbury a worldwide election. The ABC should be appointed as the Primate of All England. This nonsense about becoming a quasi-papal figure for all Anglicanism should be knocked on the head. We are - or should be - a family of churches. I wouldn't dream of trying to influence the appointment of an archbishop (or equivalent) in the US, Canada, or Nigeria or wherever. And the reverse should apply.

I'm not an Anglican, so I wouldn't tell Anglicans what to do. But as an outsider, I often read about how the ABofC is expected to speak out for or against what Anglicans around the world are doing. It seems to me that if this person is appointed without regard to worldwide Anglicanism, then it ill-behoves him to make public statements on these issues. Or rather, he can say what he likes, but he can hardly expect anyone else to pay much attention.
The expectation that the ABC is expected to speak out for or against what Anglicans around the world are doing is largely an English myth. No one outside England believes that -- those who did are dead or disillusioned by the records of the last couple of ABCs, who notoriously did not speak, or claim to speak, for Anglicans around the world.

John
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I'll defer to SPK once he reads all this, but it is my understanding that the United Church of Canada has had a fairly thorough democratic process for the election of the equivalent of synod delegates, and the every-three-year election of the Moderator.

This has worked adequately since 1925, when the merger of Methodist, Presbyterian and other churches produced the UNITED Church of Canada.

There are always people who object to the decisions made by the elected legislative bodies of that church, but the issues are debated at length in public, and the votes are public. The solution to one's dissatisfaction with a given decision is to actually take part in the system, not to sit outside crying "Foul!"

The UCC were among the first in Canada to take up the issues of OoW, LGBT rights, SSMs, the Residential Schools issue and other aboriginal concerns, and many other issues, all of which have left disgruntled people who "can't understand why we are doing this", but, hey, that's democracy for you. Sometimes people actually discuss and agree on stuff- which will never satisfy those who prefer occasionally-benign dictatorships.

You rang?

The United Church of Canada is a bottom-up organization, so lets start at the bottom, at the Congregation/Pastoral Charge (a flock of congregations with one minister and Session) level.

A Congregation must hold an Annual General Meeting of its Members (those who have been confirmed and are on the Roll) and elect Elders to form a Session/Church Council (the newer model) and Trustees. A Congregation must also elect Presbytery Representatives who are also Elders. A Charge gets a number of reps based on its roll numbers on the Presbytery total. There is annual Blue Slip return (census) which goes into the Yearbook which is the source for these numbers.

A Presbytery (there are 60 or so of them) then elects its chair and officers. Presbytery members are NOT bound by decisions of their congregations and may vote their conscience, there is an explicit Manual section on this. This makes utter sense as Presbytery is the court charged with oversight of individual congregations and cleaning up pastoral trainwrecks.

All Presbytery members are also members of Conference (Synod) of which there are 13. Conference meets annually at the AGM and has responsibility for the weightier matters: Ordination, Transfer & Settlement of ministers and ordinands, expensive outreach campaigns, and suspension of ministers. They also have permanent staff, most Presbyteries don't.

Both Presbyteries and General Council elect Commissioners every three years for General Council.

The Moderator is elected by General Council, traditionally on the second day. We just elected the Rt. Rev. Gary Patterson, who is gay and is the spouse of the first openly-gay minister ordained in the United Church of Canada after the epic 38th General Council in 1988. The Moderator is our spiritual leader and is supposed to speak for the United Church, that being the primary purpose of the office.

A Congregation, Presbytery or Conference can transmit a Proposal to a higher court at any time for action. Likewise an appeal lies to the next higher court over lower-court decisions. The final authority being the Appeals Committee of General Council.

To amend doctrine (the Basis of Union), as the United Church just did, involves the Barrier Act. A Remit Proposal must be passed by one General Council and sent down to both Presbyteries and Congregations. I voted on one last year. They come around once a generation. If approved (and there is no abstention, it's Yes or No) then the Remit has to be confirmed by the next General Council.

Of course this requires active participation, and it is an open question as to how many Sessions were asleep when they passed the Remit, or voted their Minister's wishes.

Why some people are debating Democracy in Church is beyond me; I thought church was achingly democratic. In fact one of the primary responsibilities of Membership is to participate in the Congregational Democracy.

Democracy and discussion has been one of our primary strategies for keeping this project on the rails since 1925. We diffuse tensions by talking them out.
 
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
But bishops are already elected, by the dean and chapter. This is the mechanism as described by wikipaedia. So, as indicated by the bit I've emboldened, it's totally democratic already.
quote:
The crown thereupon grants to the dean and chapter its licence under the great seal to elect a new bishop, accompanied by a letter missive containing the name of the person whom the dean and chapter are to elect. This is also published in the London Gazette within a few days of issue. The dean and chapter are thereupon bound to elect the person so named by the crown within twelve days, in default of which the crown is empowered by the statute to nominate by letters patent such person as it may think fit, to the vacant bishopric.

As an American Episcopalian I read the posts about letters missive and chapter elections as "democracy" and I laugh. Surely the quoted posts are jokes about ecclesiatical democracy, right?
*
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0