Jim - I agree - I think it would do well to draw the analogy between TEC's governance and the role governance plays in the U.S.. Both are intrinsic to identity and what we believe about ourselves and others, and are necessary to preserving that identity and those beliefs. They can not be separated one from the other without doing immense damage to both.

Most Americans understand that, or they used to. The term "polity" was a short handed way of putting it across. Perhaps, we can't use shorthand anymore.

This raises a very interesting issue. There is one point of view that "politics" and the conflict that inevitably comes with it is inherently worldly and sordid and thus unfit to enter into considerations of religious issues. However. all organizations, whatever their mission, must establish some form of governance.

For most Americans the enlightenment values embodied in the US constitution and in the constitutions of non-governmental organizations such as TEC are very fundamental principles. At their core is the notion that anything can be changed if it is the will of the people. An orderly process usually makes some things harder to change than others, but nothing is placed absolutely beyond the ultimate control of the voters.

The culture wars regularly raise the issue as to whether there are some beliefs that are so fundamental that they simply cannot be allowed to change. The medieval structure of the Roman Catholic Church is based on this assumption with a supreme leader with the power to speak infalabilly.

These two different points of view seem to be at the heart of the current debate. This goes beyond any particular issue such as sexuality. In my mind the value of democratic process can stand on its on without having to be found "in the Bible".

I do not beleive polity is theology, merely governing rules of an organisation.

LOL, a dictionary helps both in spelling (*believe) and in definition (polity), and works best 'before' posting.

Isn't *Frank Luntz* a term with similar problems? I had to look it up...

Don't worry Frank, we are not a fussy bunch here when it comes to spelling, typos, etc.

Frank - I think technically polity does not mean theology. But I also think that when American Episcopalians speak about the importance of their polity, it is somewhat like an American speaking about the importance of the way its government has been set up to preserve and express it's underlying ideology, and the way it is intrinsic to our identity as Americans.

To borrow from a commenter at Stand Firm, progressive Episcopalians define themselves in terms of TEC's historic polity: a fully autonomous, theologically inclusive national church held together by canons which reflect the representational nature of the church.

In this way our polity is neither arbitrary nor dispensable, but a vital part of our common life as a church, as vital as the inclusive Gospel we embrace.

I completely agree about "polity".

I'd prefer we talk about our decision making processes and mutual discernment process. That's the key to what we're talking about.

The process is how we collectively do theology.

re: polity as theology. In the period of the great councils of the Church the topic was theological in speaking of our faith in answering the question about who God is. God-Talk - thank you Phyllis Tickle. I really think the polity issue is REALLY important because what we are doing in this period of time is not about who is God, but who is a person. We are not in a Christological Controversy, but an Anthropological Controversy. Our polity is based on answers of just who is a person that may be fundamentally different and need be articualted well. Bishops statements did well on that score for me, though much more needs to said.

T James,

It strikes me that anthropological issues intersect christological ones in a profound sense, if we take Nicea and Chalcedon seriously, in that Christ was/is fully human as well as Divine.

To put it into the context of the current conversations/controversies, we welcome LGBT people into the full sacramental life of the Church because they are fully human, and, therefore, we are called to honor the presence of Christ in them just as fully as in anyone else.

At the end of the day, we are arguing christology, here: does Christ embrace and redeem our full humanity or not? Our anthropology is both informative of and informed by this question.

Hence, our polity is theologically and christologically rooted. In a Church tradition that I believe is foundationally incarnational -- God, the transcendent, manifested in humanity and creation.

Richard,

Absolutely! As the Nicene Faith was not born at Nicea, but Bethlehem,it just happened to need a bit reflection to get all the connections there for centuries. Our anthropology is most profoundly rooted in our ancient Nicene Faith, it just needs a bit of reflection so we can better understand and live into it. That is what I heard from our Bishops. We will live into it with greater understanding and maybe intentionality. That is my hope.

Boy,

I am Frank Luntz' worst student, no?