Christianity

247 readers

4 users here now

Discussion about Christianity by Christians and those who are curious.

Rule #1. Anti-Christian and anti-Bible statements will not be tolerated. Constructive criticism of Christianity is OK, however.

Rule #1.1. The measure for what is considered Christian, as has been the case in the faith since the earliest days, will be the faith proclaimed in the Nicene Creed.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Terevos

[email protected]

Rua

-2

An argument for episcopal oversight (self.christianity)

submitted 4 days ago by swcollings to c/christianity

2 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I grew up in an evangelical nondenom tradition. I've since found Anglicanism, and I've been working to understand the broader discussions of Christian history. I've recently become sold on the idea that Bishops are super-important.

Christianity in America is largely of the "literally anyone can open a Church and teach whatever crap they make up and there's no authority to contradict them" variety. Naturally that results in a fake god that blesses the actions those random pastors already chose. Thus, evangelical Christianity in America, which broadly resembles Christ not at all.

In the classical Church tradition there are specific people whose sole purpose is to ensure the Church keeps teaching the things it has always taught. Those people are called bishops. And Bishop Budde of the Episcopal Church is an example of why that system works while others have failed so miserably. She keeps the faith, in the very literal sense that she protects and shepherds it.

Some may have problems with her being a woman or SGM-affirming, but that's beside my point. This is a person doing something Bishops were always meant to do, and (at least in the recent areas of discussion) doing it extremely well.

Episcopal oversight FTW.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago

I agree that there is a need for oversight in churches and I think independent baptist churches are generally a bad idea due to that lack of oversight (and from what I have heard, there does seem to be a lot of them in America). However, this argument in favour of an episcopal system of church government assumes bishops are the only way to achieve this oversight.

I go to a presbyterian church, and I find the presbyterian system of church government to work well in terms of providing oversight (I also think it is closer to the system of church government we see in the New Testament). The idea is that the elders of churches oversee each other. Presbyterian churches usually have multiple elders at the local church level so they can make decisions together and keep each other accountable. At the next level up, all the elders in a region meet together in a presbytery to settle issues raised from local churches, decide if someone is suitable for ordination, and approve church plants. There are often one or two levels above this, depending on the size of a denomination, usually called "synod" or "general assembly", which includes elders from a wider area (and ultimately the whole denomination), which settles disputes between presbyteries and issues the presbytery can't handle. I think that works better because it doesn't rely on a single person having oversight over a group of people and answers the question of who oversees the bishop.

Ultimately, however, there isn't really a perfect solution to be found in a system of church government alone. It seems like problems develop in all kinds of denominations, and problems often develop slowly or secretly so that oversight doesn't come into effect until it's too late. It may be just because my denomination is relatively young that we haven't run into major problems yet. I think the most important thing is for the oversight and discipline infrastructure to be proactive in dealing with problems, rather than leaving them until they become a bigger issue. Having some system of oversight is necessary for that to happen, of course.