Questions for Episcopalians and Anglicans regarding leadership

linux.poet said:

[post in fellowship]

Recently, I've been starting to wonder whether the relationships between leaders and followers (parishioners, priests, and bishops - correct me if I've got the wrong terminology) in Anglican and Episcopalian denominations are similar to those between non-denominational church members and their pastors or very different. (For example, if someone criticized John MacArthur (a non-denominational leader), for example, it would be considered fairly rude for someone to assume that I share the same beliefs as him even if I went to his church or a church associated with him. I would not be inclined to take criticism of non-denominational leaders personally or view it as a personal attack on my beliefs -it's an attack on them that has nothing to do with me. But non-denominational is just that: non-denominational, and we don't have a strong structure of associations.)

1. Are Anglican/Episcopalian priests, bishops, etc viewed as representatives of their denomination and what they believe?

Click to expand...

There's an old joke that if you ask three Episcopalians a question you will get 5 answers. So keep in mind my response is only for me. So officially when an Episcopal cleric (deacon, priest, and bishop) is ordained they swear to keep to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Church. Bishops have a special obligation to serve as guardians of the faith and unity of the Church. But here's the trick, doctrine is fairly loosely defined for us.

linux.poet said:

2. Is criticism or attack of one Anglican/Episcopalian bishop or priest viewed as an attack on the whole Episcopalian/Anglican system of beliefs? If I went to an Episcopal church and I criticized the sermon given by one individual priest or bishop, would that be interpreted as unbelief in the denomination's beliefs as a whole?

Click to expand...

No I don't think it would. Mostly because our common identity is more found in our common worship. I will say though, assuming this is inspired by +Budde, that we would feel attacked as a whole if you doubt the authority of a Bishop because you disagree with a teaching. Like it's fine to disagree with a bishop, but implying that they are not a bishop or were not faithfully proclaiming the gospel as they understand it would be be fighting words.

linux.poet said:

3. Is criticism or attack of an Anglican/Episcopalian bishop something that you would be likely to view as an attack on your beliefs, or something that you would take as a personal attack on you? (addressed to Anglicans and Episcopalians)

Click to expand...

See above.

linux.poet said:

4. Does the Anglican or Episcopalian denomination require its members to share certain political beliefs?

Click to expand...

Nope. There are conservative Anglicans and there are progressive Anglicans, even in the same denomination. This is probably more obvious when comparing different dioceses, but it happens within dioceses as well. I will say, the Episcopal Church does lean more progressive politically as a whole, but that's not a requirement of being Episcopalian and even that is fairly recent. Up until I believe the 70s the church was often called "The Republican Party at prayer."

linux.poet said:

Do the Angelicans or Episcopalians tend to believe what their bishops express

Click to expand...

Honestly, most of us probably have no idea what our bishops say most of the time. While we are united in Dioceses under the ultimate authority of a bishop, in day-to-day life it's usually our local priest we care more about.

linux.poet said:

or is there more going on like "I don't agree with what my pastor says about politics, but I agree with their theology so I'm going to that church anyway" that a non-denominational person (such as myself) might say?

Click to expand...

And here there is going to be a lot of differences of belief. There are those who believe that politics have no place in church and those who believe that Christianity and politics are inherently connected. But if politics do get mentioned, they are going to be considered theologically based.

linux.poet said:

1. Are Anglican/Episcopalian priests, bishops, etc viewed as representatives of their denomination and what they believe?

Click to expand...

First up, like @Arcangl86, take my replies with the disclaimer that they represent my understanding, and not necessarily a universal understanding. Also, I am in Australia, and I have come to realise that cultural norms do differ a bit between Anglicans of different countries.

In answer to this question, I would say, yes and no. There are times when clergy, especially bishops, speak officially on behalf of their churches. They make statements that are intended to convey the understanding or position of the denomination more broadly. While that isn't necessarily binding on every member to agree, it is speaking for the organisation as a whole.

But there are also times - more often, I would say - when clergy, even bishops, speak less officially, and are making more personal statements of their own views. I would hope that when they are speaking as representatives they would make that clear (or, as I just did, when we share our own views, that we make that clear too), but I would guess there are plenty of times when the line is a bit blurred.

Notably, probably the most "official" sort of statement you could get, in terms of presenting the views of Anglicans as a whole, would be resolutions of synods, or Lambeth Conferences. Statements crafted and agreed to by majority vote of representative gatherings.

linux.poet said:

2. Is criticism or attack of one Anglican/Episcopalian bishop or priest viewed as an attack on the whole Episcopalian/Anglican system of beliefs? If I went to an Episcopal church and I criticized the sermon given by one individual priest or bishop, would that be interpreted as unbelief in the denomination's beliefs as a whole?

Click to expand...

Generally, no; but it does depend on the attack or criticism, I suppose. It's fairly common, for example, for me to see people say things about Anglicans or Anglican leaders that CF would consider not-a-real-Christian flames; and if that's said in a way that reflects on the whole denomination, then people are likely to take it personally.

There are also doctrinal standards which are considered authoritative in some way for Anglicans, like the 39 Articles; criticising those would be more likely to be taken as disagreement with the denomination as a whole.

But more specific and minor disagreements - like, I didn't agree with what Paidiske said about Psalm 19 last Sunday, I think her take on the relationship between Torah and Gospel is a bit iffy - nobody is going to take that as anything other than criticism of Paidiske's take on Psalm 19!

linux.poet said:

3. Is criticism or attack of an Anglican/Episcopalian bishop something that you would be likely to view as an attack on your beliefs, or something that you would take as a personal attack on you? (addressed to Anglicans and Episcopalians)

Click to expand...

Again, it depends on the content and scope of the attack. If - for example - you call my bishop apostate for ordaining women, I'm going to take that pretty personally; but if you think he handled a particular parish situation poorly, I might even agree with you!

linux.poet said:

4. Does the Anglican or Episcopalian denomination require its members to share certain political beliefs?

Click to expand...

No.

linux.poet said:

Do the Angelicans or Episcopalians tend to believe what their bishops express or is there more going on like "I don't agree with what my pastor says about politics, but I agree with their theology so I'm going to that church anyway" that a non-denominational person (such as myself) might say?

Click to expand...

They might not even entirely agree with their bishop's theology, but as long as he works within Anglican norms and polity, that might be tolerable.

A good example might be that recently Australia had a referendum on a matter to do with how our Indigenous folks are recognised in our constitution. Our church officially - through synods and bishops' statements and so on - came out fairly strongly in support of the referendum question, but I doubt any Anglicans felt that they were therefore obliged to vote that way or leave.

linux.poet said:

I'm just trying to get my head out of the non-denominational thinking and make sure that I treat everyone over here with respect.

Click to expand...

I do really appreciate that. Bear in mind that we do have several clergy - and as far as I'm aware, at least one Old Catholic bishop - on the forums. So criticising clergy or bishops might be taken even more personally by us!

[ While I've been writing this, I see that @Arcangl86 has also posted. My thoughts are similar to his, but I'll go ahead and post mine anyway. ]

linux.poet said:

1. Are Anglican/Episcopalian priests, bishops, etc viewed as representatives of their denomination and what they believe?
2. Is criticism or attack of one Anglican/Episcopalian bishop or priest viewed as an attack on the whole Episcopalian/Anglican system of beliefs? If I went to an Episcopal church and I criticized the sermon given by one individual priest or bishop, would that be interpreted as unbelief in the denomination's beliefs as a whole?
3. Is criticism or attack of an Anglican/Episcopalian bishop something that you would be likely to view as an attack on your beliefs, or something that you would take as a personal attack on you? (addressed to Anglicans and Episcopalians)
4. Does the Anglican or Episcopalian denomination require its members to share certain political beliefs? Do the Angelicans or Episcopalians tend to believe what their bishops express or is there more going on like "I don't agree with what my pastor says about politics, but I agree with their theology so I'm going to that church anyway" that a non-denominational person (such as myself) might say?

Click to expand...

The preface here is that we are not a confessional denomination; that is, we do not have lengthy statement (such as the Westminster Confession) that members and clergy are required to adhere to. Our church specifically allows variation in beliefs, within a reasonable framework. Addressing your questions:

1. Yes, our priests and bishops are representative of our denomination. They should not be preaching things that are too far outside the mainstream of Anglican thought on essential matters. I wouldn't expect to hear a sermon, for example, denying the existence of God, or saying that Jesus didn't die for our sins, or saying that Communion is merely symbolic. On the other hand, our core of "essential matters" is smaller than is found in some other denominations, so clergy can differ on many theological points and still be faithful Anglicans/Episcopalians. Some clergy are inerrantists, and some are not. Some tend more toward Reformed theology, and others more toward Catholic theology. And so on. (The clergy here in STR can say more about where the exact boundaries are, what they're required to believe and teach. I think it varies somewhat from one national church to another.)

2 & 3. If you're criticizing a particular sermon, or a particular bishop's theology -- criticize away! We disagree with each other, within the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church, and that's fine. On the other hand, if you attack a validly-ordained person's right to be a priest or bishop, I'm gonna get upset.

This is what we saw with the reactions to Bishop Budde this week. A response like "Bishop Budde's sermon didn't take into account X, Y, and Z, so she should have said A instead of B" is fine; people disagree on ethics and public policy. But the comments saying that Bishop Budde is a pagan priestess and she isn't even a real bishop -- those comments made me pretty angry.

4. We're free to disagree about politics. Note that some questions that get called "political" are really "ethical". "Do we have a responsibility to care for the poor?" is ethics. "Should we redirect some sales tax revenue into a program to build low-cost public housing?" is politics; it's one of many possible ways to implement an ethical principle in public policy.

RileyG said:

If I may ask, do you consider the Archbishop of Canterbury to be the official leader of the Anglican communion, but is his (or her) title more honorific?

Click to expand...

Primus inter pares. Often his (or indeed, let us hope for her, in time!) words will be widely shared and reflected on, and he is able to take initiatives which can benefit the global communion. But he has no direct authority in much of the Anglican communion. He cannot, for example, interfere in affairs of the Anglican Church of Australia.

RileyG said:

Would his words carry more weight than the words of a different diocesan bishop?

Click to expand...

For example, our immediately most recent AoC did things like create a programme to help Anglicans build relationships across divisions, and made that available to the global communion. He also set up and led the Community of St. Anselm. (Those are just two examples I can think of, off the top of my head). That kind of resourcing work can be part of the gift of that office to the wider church. But no one is obliged to take it up and use it.

The AoC before that, +Rowan Williams, is a very fine scholar and his books and sermons and so on have been very widely studied (they featured reasonably heavily in my theological training). Probably more than any other recent Anglican bishop (although +Tom Wright and +Desmond Tutu would be contenders alongside him).

RileyG said:

If I may ask, do you consider the Archbishop of Canterbury to be the official leader of the Anglican communion, but is his (or her) title more honorific?

Click to expand...

The Archbishop of Canterbury is officially considered one of the four Instruments of Communion, but that's not quite the same as saying he's the leader of the Anglican Communion. Traditionally he has been seen as the person who decides what churches are "Anglican" but that has shifted recently. Also, I suspect most Anglicans outside of the CoE don't really give him much thought on a day to day.

RileyG said:

I know he’s not the “Anglican Pope” because he’s not above all the bishops.

Would his words carry more weight than the words of a different diocesan bishop?

(posting in fellowship)

Click to expand...

By virtue of his office no. For other reasons possibly. Mother Padiske mentioned Rowan WIlliams being quite an accomplished scholar for instance. But I also remember when he was pushing the idea of an Anglican Covenant and how it didn't get much traction in large portions of the communion, regardless of him pushing it.

Arcangl86 said:

Also, I suspect most Anglicans outside of the CoE don't really give him much thought on a day to day.

Click to expand...

I think this partly depends where you are in the world. I think I've said something similar to this before, but churches which are smaller and less self-sufficient, are more likely to look to the C of E - and Canterbury in particular - for a sense of being part of something bigger than just their local reality.

Arcangl86 said:

But I also remember when he was pushing the idea of an Anglican Covenant and how it didn't get much traction in large portions of the communion, regardless of him pushing it.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's true. Allthough there was a lot more at play there than just a disagreement about the level of authority of the AoC!

I am a Continuing Anglican, which is to say a sort of Anglican who is no longer in communion with The Episcopal Church. As much as the founders of the Continuing Movement want to argue their stand against mainstream Episcopalianism was a matter of doctrine and practice, there were underlying political factors as well. As such, the Continuing Movement tends to represent the most conservative pole of American Anglicanism.

linux.poet said:

1. Are Anglican/Episcopalian priests, bishops, etc viewed as representatives of their denomination and what they believe?

Click to expand...

Yes.

linux.poet said:

2. Is criticism or attack of one Anglican/Episcopalian bishop or priest viewed as an attack on the whole Episcopalian/Anglican system of beliefs? If I went to an Episcopal church and I criticized the sermon given by one individual priest or bishop, would that be interpreted as unbelief in the denomination's beliefs as a whole?

Click to expand...

Not usually but it would depend somewhat on the nature of the attack. As others have mentioned, the core of beliefs which are always and everywhere defended is somewhat smaller than certain other Reformation era churches.

linux.poet said:

3. Is criticism or attack of an Anglican/Episcopalian bishop something that you would be likely to view as an attack on your beliefs, or something that you would take as a personal attack on you? (addressed to Anglicans and Episcopalians)

Click to expand...

Probably not. Again it depends upon the nature of the attack.

linux.poet said:

4. Does the Anglican or Episcopalian denomination require its members to share certain political beliefs? Do the Anglicans or Episcopalians tend to believe what their bishops express or is there more going on like "I don't agree with what my pastor says about politics, but I agree with their theology so I'm going to that church anyway" that a non-denominational person (such as myself) might say?

Click to expand...

I would say this is one major difference between Continuing Anglicans and our Episcopalian cousins. You will find less variety in political opinion in the Continuing churches. Probably also less tolerance for variant political views on the hot button topics that tend to work up American Evangelicals. A Priest I formerly worked under had a tendency to run folks off every now and then because he was a little too deeply involved with the Republican party. Likewise, I knew a bishop back in Virginia that was always hanging out around the governor and he wasn't even a parishioner of this bishop. It's hard to divorce the church from the politics when the clergy are that tied in with a political figure.

Thank you linux.poet, for your interest in our inclusion in the forums.

I am in England, and I am not clergy. In other words if a Priest corrects me I am wrong, and my answers may not apply globally.

linux.poet said:

1. Are Anglican/Episcopalian priests, bishops, etc viewed as representatives of their denomination and what they believe?

Click to expand...

Yes, and Bishops should represent Priests, who represent the rest of us.

linux.poet said:

2. Is criticism or attack of one Anglican/Episcopalian bishop or priest viewed as an attack on the whole Episcopalian/Anglican system of beliefs? If I went to an Episcopal church and I criticized the sermon given by one individual priest or bishop, would that be interpreted as unbelief in the denomination's beliefs as a whole?

Click to expand...

Usually, yes, but...

At this present time, we are having a dispute amongst ourselves about what we should be believing, within the Church of England and around the world. This 39 Articles of Religion is supposed to be the limits of our doctrine, but on account of the disputes, we have this Continuing Discussion happening. The person who is responsible for maintaining unity across the global Anglican Communion is the Archbishop of Canturbury, but he resigned in shame last November, and has not yet been replaced.

We are willing to share Holy Communion with most people from other Protestant churches a non-Anglican guest can criticise and disagree, even if it is with us all. That ought to be a chance to listen to their perspective and explain our own ways, not feel insulted and take offense. I might appeal to the nearest Priest if I could not easily respond to such a complaint, they are the shepherds, I am only a sheep.

linux.poet said:

3. Is criticism or attack of an Anglican/Episcopalian bishop something that you would be likely to view as an attack on your beliefs, or something that you would take as a personal attack on you? (addressed to Anglicans and Episcopalians)

Click to expand...

Attack on beliefs yes, personal attack on me no.

linux.poet said:

4. Does the Anglican or Episcopalian denomination require its members to share certain political beliefs? Do the Anglicans or Episcopalians tend to believe what their bishops express or is there more going on like "I don't agree with what my pastor says about politics, but I agree with their theology so I'm going to that church anyway" that a non-denominational person (such as myself) might say?

Click to expand...

In the UK, Bishops and Priests are not supposed to direct people about which political party to support, so rather than even having to say that we do not agree with their politics, we should just be free to vote or support out loud whoever we choose. They usually try to avoid expressing political allegiance. We do not have an elected President, and the King is not supposed to say anything "political" either.

There are occaissions in our House of Commons which the Speaker (I believe it is the Speaker) can call as a "Vote of Conscience", and then no MP can be disciplined by their own Party for voting as they wish to. In those situations the Church of England leaders and any other religious leaders of any kind, might and often do, provide an instruction about which side their own members should take. This generally only applies to proposed laws that directly affect life and death.

RamiC said:

I am in England, and I am not clergy. In other words if a Priest corrects me I am wrong,

Click to expand...

Let me just interrupt to note that priests are not infallible, and we can be wrong.

RamiC said:

There are occaissions in our House of Commons which the Speaker (I believe it is the Speaker) can call as a "Vote of Conscience", and then no MP can be disciplined by their own Party for voting as they wish to. In those situations the Church of England leaders and any other religious leaders of any kind, might and often do, provide an instruction about which side their own members should take. This generally only applies to proposed laws that directly affect life and death.

Click to expand...

We might also note the existence of the Lords Spiritual as part of England's parliamentary system.

Paidiske said:

Let me just interrupt to note that priests are not infallible, and we can be wrong.

We might also note the existence of the Lords Spiritual as part of England's parliamentary system.

Click to expand...

LOL - I noticed you guys were not infallible when I was 6 years old, and you all keep telling me 5 decades later! Agreed, Priests are not perfect, but you got a Theology Degree, and a Calling, and all I got is my faith.

The Lord's Spiritual are there yes, but with little impact on party politics, because that is in the House we do not vote for, the King technically invites them. Did I cause offense then? Australia can leave the Commonwealth if they want.

RamiC said:

Did I cause offense then? Australia can leave the Commonwealth if they want.

Click to expand...

Not at all; or at least, not to me. I find the whole phenomenon of an Established church fascinating; our experience is so very different.

RileyG said:

If I may ask, do you consider the Archbishop of Canterbury to be the official leader of the Anglican communion, but is his (or her) title more honorific?

I know he’s not the “Anglican Pope” because he’s not above all the bishops.

Click to expand...

Click here for a link to the official web page about the AoC and his role. The first sentence is "The Archbishop of Canterbury is the Focus for Unity for the three other Instruments of Communion of the Anglican Communion, and is therefore a unique focus for Anglican unity." The rest is on the link.

This is the list of churches recognised by the See of Canterbury

And just for you, in case you want some more of our prayers, Here is the prayers page.