Read this over at The Low Churchman's Guide to the Solemn High Mass:
Loyal churchmen agree on the necessity of episcopal government for the
English church; after all, it is this aspect of our polity that
distinguishes true Anglicans from nonconformists and other evildoers. It
would be preferable, however, if the English church could find a way
retain its episcopal polity without having bishops. However respectable a
bishop might be in his personal character, he is sure to give the wrong
impression when he appears in a service to perform some ceremonial
function. Clad in special garments and attended by specially-trained
acolytes, the bishop appears for all the world as though he is a prelate
with special spiritual powers rather than an administrator whose time
would be better spent attending budget meetings and writing letters to
the editor.
At first I was sure some Lutherans had infiltrated the ranks of the Low Churchmen or hacked into their web site. For, so surely does this paragraph capture the sentiments of Lutherans who would like to have a less democratic style of governance but without actually having bishops who say or do or act churchly, that I was sure some Lutheran spoofed me.
In the Missouri Synod we have those who be content with paper pushers (as long as the paper is being pushed in the direction they approve). Some speak of our District Presidents as glorified accountants or office administrators or meeting specialists. They even deny a DP the title "Pastor" until they actually have a call from a congregation (so I guess we cannot complain about Pastor Harrison in this way, what with his call and such).
At the very same time, however, these same folks decry the lack of attention given to those parishes and Pastors who wander from the accepted Synodical practice and teaching. "Do something," they cry! But to do something, these paper pushers must have episcopal authority (specifically, the authority to supervise doctrine and practice of those Pastors and parishes within their geographical boundaries).
We lament the plight of our Synod -- the diversity too diverse for many of us -- but the answer lies clearly in DPs acting episcopally -- that is paying attention to and addressing doctrine and practice within their areas of geographic responsibility. Do we really want men who will attend budget meetings, write letters, show up to preach at anniversaries, and read their parts in the rites of ordination and installation? Is that enough? I dare say it is not enough for either side of the LCMS spectrum. So, if that is the way it is, we must accord them some measure of episcopal authority (oversight) and pray that they will exercise this honestly, pastorally, with wisdom and discretion.
Leave the clerical collar and cope at home, we say. Come with humility when we call you. But when we need you, do not dilly dally. And when we deliver to you the great problems worthy of Solomon, you better figure out how to make us all happy. Or we will not send in the missions check this month. This is the not so subtle dilemma in which some of our districts and their presidents find themselves.
Personally, I would rather have someone who preaches, teaches, and practices faithfully and who calls the Pastors and parishes under his care to such faithfulness. Accountability is not a bad thing. In the end, if it takes some purple fabric, a good sized pectoral cross, and some authority to back up his words, I am willing to take it in order to get some visitation and supervision. Maybe the low church Lutherans fear this more than death itself but I welcome such godly leadership.
11 comments:
This:
"In the end, if it takes some purple fabric, a good sized pectoral cross, and some authority to back up his words, I am willing to take it in order to get some visitation and supervision."
is really one of your best lines. And I agree!
True episcopal leadership was the hallmark of the Early Church. One of the early writers said, "Where te bishop is, there is the Church is."
As an Anglican, I am committed to the idea of episcopal leadership, while at the same time recognizing that bishops are still just men. I have known a good number of bishops, and some were really good, godly men who taught and preached the Gospel with great zeal and understanding. I have known a few others who were venal, self-serving and totally unworthy of their calling (Bp. Bennison of the Diocese of PA is a prime example of the latter). It is a mixed blessing, and one to be understood that way.
I currently work closely with a retired bishop who serves the parish where I worship. He is a faithful teacher, when he teaches, but that is all too rare. He is more into psychology than the Gospel.
Episcopal leadership is not the answer to all problems, although over all, it seems to be a good thing. It reins in congregational autonomy which often seems to be needed.
Fr. D+
Anglican Priest
"But to do something, these paper pushers must have episcopal authority (specifically, the authority to supervise doctrine and practice of those Pastors and parishes within their geographical boundaries)."
Actually district presidents, and the synodical president, do have the authority and responsibility for ecclesiastical supervision.
Sadly, there is a dereliction of ecclesiastical supervision by the DPs and SP in the Missouri Synod. It is even reached the point where a video apology for even trying it is put on the internet for Lutherans, along with the world, to see. And there continue to be Lutheran blog articles complaining that the LCMS should have an episcopal polity.
Of course, we know what happened the last time a designated ecclesiastical supervisor was determined to actually carry out his sworn responsibilities correctly and in a Lutheran manner.
What happened, Carl?
Fr. D+
Anglican Priest
Yes, I would like to know what "Carl Vehse" is talking about...
-Peter Sovitzky
You can read all about it in the Schulz Report or in the Overall Summary.
Thanks, Carl.
I recall the episode from when it originally happened, but I was not aware of the extent of the disturbance. The pharisees have got nothing at all on you guys!
Fr. D+
Mr. Vehse,
I don't think one instance is an argument for our current LCMS polity which seems to go against the historic church's understanding of the three-fold office...
-Peter Sovitzky
I don't think one instance is an argument for our current LCMS polity which seems to go against the historic church's understanding of the three-fold office..."
The current LCMS polity has become a bastardized version of the polity developed by Walther and the other founders of the Missouri Synod. We need to have all pastors, professors, teachers and leaders of the Missouri Synod return to honor and uphold Kirche und Amt as the official position of our Synod on church and ministry and teach in accordance with it.
The Lutherans have a remarkably varied history of using the office of bishop, in Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince-Bishopric_of_Osnabr%C3%BCck
Notice specially the last prince-bishop, Prince Frederick, the second son of George III. George of GB and Hanover, confirmed the selection of Frederick as Bishop of Osnabruck when Frederick was only 6 months old.
In this article, one also sees the remarkable results that Napoleon had on changing the church in Germany. I've read historians who figure that the bulk of Lutheran church art was destroyed under Napoleon in his anti-religion aspect.
I have read that in function, the Lutheran princes in Germany became bishop-princes, so to speak. The princes functioned very much as "bishops" in the production, implementation, and enforcement of the various, territorial church orders. Although, much is made of the evangelical doctrine of the two kingdoms, Lutheran thinking on the functions and responsibilities of a Christian prince, confabulate the kingdoms to a great extent.
This is what one sees if the focus is on history and what actually happened. One might think that the German Lutherans didn't establish official bishops in the various territorial churches because the Christian princes were already performing the functions a bishop would have.
It's fascinating to read how the church at Leipzig functioned and was structured during Bach's tenure there, 1723-1750. One should be very aware that this is a Lutheran city diocese that has recently come under the rule of a Roman Catholic court. So, we have a Christian prince who is not a Lutheran, what what, as George III might have said.
Leipzig's ecclesial organization is very cogent to LC-MS because Walther attended the University there. And, though Langenschursdorf was likely under the consistory at Chemnitz, that would have been very similar to Leipzig. One can better understand Walther's actions in organizing the church in St. Louis, when one understands how the church was organized in Leipzig and at Chemnitz in 1825-1835.
ad fontes
That was a very interesting comment, Joanne. Thank you.
Fr. D+
Anglican Priest
Post a Comment