I think we pass over Jesus is Head of the Church a little to blithely and what that has meant for TEC historically in terms of non-establishment and in terms of dispersed authority.

Precisely because Jesus is Head, as the late Bishop Sykes' observed as did Archbishop Runcie, our authorities are many and authority is dispersed. We should refrain, especially as the non-established Episcopal Church, given our history, from calling any or seeking after any person or body among us as "head". Dispersed and limited and checked authorities responsible to Christ our Head and in turn to the whole of Christ's Body in this Church reflects language more appropriate to our actual polity.

I should add, because Jesus is Head, the Church is reformable, and that means that it remains under Christ's judgment, meaning that the final arbiter is Christ--all of our authorities otherwise are provisional, contingent, capable of error, and open to correction. Even General Convention can be rebuked when Jesus is Lord and Head of the Church.

Under Jesus, I'd say GC is the head of TEC. The PB's power is limited, and each bishop has a good deal of power within the diocese. To me, it's difficult to explain the governance of TEC to an outsider or a newcomer. I paid only vague attention, even to my diocese, until the uproar over Bp. Gene Robinson's consecration.

Even General Convention can be rebuked when Jesus is Lord and Head of the Church.

Thanks be to God that TEC makes no claims to infallibility, or I wouldn't be a part of it.

June Butler

My whole point is that christologically and thus ecclesiologically, "head" is to be reserved for Jesus Christ alone. No one else is "head," period. Governors, presenters, authorities, yes. But "head," no. We contradict our own common praying and history when we use this term for any other than Jesus Christ. That we are asking this question in this way at all is theologically problematic and historically forgetful. That we are using "head" in a way our reform and history reject suggests to me we have become far too institutionally-inward and caught up in ourselves.

I keep thinking of a line from Becket where Henry is chastised by the old ABC who speaks of temporal authority as "after God!" (With everyone duly crossing themselves at his emphasis.)

We have had to deal so much with the question of administrative structure lately that we don't speak as much of Christ's headship of the church, as Chris points out. If a person in one of my pews is asking the question, they really don't want the nuance of who appoints whom.

My answer would be Christ is the head, but as a body, we select leaders from all orders of ministry responsible for discerning how we faithfully serve under Christ's headship.

Authority resides in conversation, listening, and then deciding by those set aside to decide. What that looks like depends on what level of church life we're talking about.

If someone doesn't like the theoretical, I would say authority resides in the General Convention nationally and in the bishop and diocesan leadership locally, after God!

(As an aside, I'm not a fan of increasingly assertive primatial authority by the PB's office. My own bishop once said that the PB needs to trust he knows what is best regarding his diocese.)

Dirk Reinken

Thanks Christopher - of course, Jesus is the head as you say--but this is really more a question of what is our current polity -- nuts and bolts and what to tell seekers about how things work. I was in no way being blithe about Jesus. That is way too important to me.

Only in the patriarchy would such a question even need to be asked....

Paige Baker

Since I don't think the question seeks a theological answer, I'd say the General Convention. Period, end of story. I don't think there is serious debate on this issue. All challenges to the authority of General Convention arise from grievance, and not from a coherent theory of church governance.

The question is the wrong question.

I will reiterate. The question as to authorities in our polity and governance must begin with a theological answer, specifically a christological one, to the question Who is the head of the Church? The answer and only answer is Jesus Christ. No governor, nor authority stands in Christ's stead, but is governed by and is minded to Christ ever imperfectly "this side of the New Creation" to quote Miroslav Volf.

The proper question of polity and governance flowing from this answer is this: Who are the responsible-answerable authorities in this Church?

Among those authorities are our Constitution and Canons, General Convention in both houses, our bishops, our priests, our deacons, our Book of Common Prayer, our vestries, our seminaries, our professors...

All are answerable not only to one another but to Christ, who often has brought them back to themselves and to himself by means of other provisional, contingent, prone to err authorities such as the laity and prophets and reformers.

In our theology, christology, polity, and governance, all of us have power--limited to Christ, even if we lack official, public authority. We all are called to take responsibility. The christological question reframed to ask questions of polity not only contravenes our praying and history, it contravenes responsibility-taking on the part of all. It wants to place responsibility soley on someone other than ourselves for care of the Body.

The reason we have many authorities and dispersed authority in our church governance and polity is precisely because of our christological answer.

We can have challenges to the authority of General Convention--yes, arising from grievance, sometimes egregious in our history I might add such as slavery--because our practice, not mere theory, of Church governance has learned that to maintain Jesus is Lord requires dispersed, responsible, answerable authorities, recognition that we are all called to take responsibility as disciples, and many authorities in teaching and theology. Our polity flows from our christology and ecclesiology as professed and lived.

Whenever "head" is used as a term for any Church authority, whether an office or a body, I get very nervous, for that is the moment we tend to begin to tighten up against and closing off challenges of grievance that may require our correction and amendment, irrespective of our party or stance.

In other words, there is no Period for General Convention, but only for Jesus Christ. Final authority rests in other than ourselves and our responsible-answerable authorities. Contingent, provisional, capable of error, and open to correction marks our lives together in this Church.

Paige: or coming from a worldview that expects patriarchy (which is not the same thing as 'demanding' patriarchy).

And Christopher, you are exactly right: if the question is what you are taking it to be, it IS the wrong question. Yes, divinity, God/Jesus/HS, IS the head of the church or we're really, really off track.

But I don't think the question is what you are taking it to be. I think few, if any, are going to ask this question with that scope of an answer in mind.

I agree with Ann: my guess is that most people who would ask the question ask in the sense of, "what is our equivalent of the Pope?" or "of the Ecumenical Patriarch?" or "Stated Clerk?" or whatever.

And the answer seems to me to be "The Archbishop of Canterbury" or "The Presiding Bishop" or "General Convention" or "there is no such thing," depending on what sense of equivalency is intended.

We have no equivalent to the Pope. That is precisely part of our historical response. We have no vicar--one who stands in the stead of--Christ. And the question as framed touches precisely on our christology historically speaking. And I don't think is unrelated to the possibility of our own misuse of authority or abuse of power. It is meet and right to reframe the question.

If asked this question as is, we are responsible to reframe the question for those who ask such, wanting to know who is responsible-answerable in our Church, into a form that answers their question and continues to honor our christology rather than let the initial question govern how we answer.

Our ABC is no equivalent to the Pope, nor is our PB, nor is any authority in this Church or in the Anglican Communion. And the Orthodox do not make claims of this sort for the EP either, I might add. They are clear, there is one Head or else as both Orthodox and Reformers point out, we have a monster.

Perhaps I may provide the context for the original question since it was I, a kibitzer on Ho/B/D who originally asked the question.

Chatting with a woman who currently attends a non-denominational church but with a Roman Catholic background, I was asked who is in charge of TEC. My response was "General Convention" and I explained about the roles of bishops, priests, laity. She was somewhat disturbed by this answer and I posed the question to HoB/D to see if I should have said something else.

When I wrote the question for HoB/D, I asked it in terms of who is the head of TEC. Obviously the head of TEC is Jesus Christ. I am at fault for asking the question improperly in the first place.

As a fresh-faced 18 year-old Episcopalian Anglophile touring Blightey, I heard a woman w/ a thick accent ask this question (re the CofE) while in Ely Cathedral (she thought is was the Queen). Said the ancient canon (complete w/ requisite English ear-hair!) "We like to think it is Our Lord." ;-D

I would answer it "Christ is the Head of the Church---ALL of us sinners down here are fallible, and in TEC, provisional. The General Convention---made up of the House of Deputies (clergy and lay) and the junior House of Bishops---meet every three years, to discern the Will of Christ as seems best to them. The Episcopal Church as a whole will live w/ their decisions for that interim period, and representatively elect another batch for the next GC . . . quite possibly to course-correct the previous GC's discernment!

...and so on and so forth, continually, until the Second Coming." :-)

JC Fisher

I think Christopher's quite right on insisting that how the question is phrased matters. The objection may seem pedantic to some but it is, at the end of the day, a matter of priorities. Jesus is the head of the Episcopal Church, and General Convention is how the church is regulated and run.

The Presiding Bishop is nothing like a pope, and whether she's something like an archbishop seems to be in debate--based how one construes an archbishop...

SisterGloriaMarie, thank you for putting the question in context.

Jim - I think it is a theological question with a theological answer. Presumably our structure grows out of our theology, not the other way around. We need to have a theology by which to judge the structure (and it's actions), as well.

I suspect it's even more problematic if we can give the temporal answer (General Convention) without at least understanding the theology (and history) of why that is so.

Since the question was asked in response to a question by a Roman Catholic who apparently wasn't happy with the answer, it's definitely theological to me.

Were a Presbyterian (or Baptist) to answer a similar question from me, I would look rather unhappy at the answer; but they would hopefully explain their polity in a way that is consistent with their theology, whether I agree with that theology or not.

With all due respect to you, Christopher, it isn't very respectful to the questioner to reframe the answer without addressing the original question, and then reframing it. Granted, Jesus seems to spend most of the Gospel of John doing just that; but,as we've been very and respectfully clear in this thread, we aren't Jesus. Sister Gloria Marie did her best to respect the questioner and the question as asked. The question was, really, "In the structure of the Episcopal Church, whose decision is final?" While I'm largely in favor of answering, "No one," "General Convention" comes as close to a "someone" as there is. I'm not surprised, either, that the questioner was disturbed. It takes a lot of faith, and a lot of individual commitment, to live with the thought that under God in Christ no one is beyond question, and no one can make my decisions simple, much less simplistic.

As committed to our polity as we are, and as willing as we are to explain, not every moment is a teaching moment. Maybe this is one of those questions that needs to be met first with another question: "What sort of answer are you looking for?"

Marshall Scott

Let's look at the question historically and as a practical matter. For better or for worse, the answer is no body "is in charge" -- or I should say that is my understanding. TEC as designed is a system of divided authority, of checks and balances -- between central and local, and between branches, with a liberal dose of voluntary obedience. Its form of governance was modeled on the Articles of Confederation that were replaced with the U.S. Constitution which gave somewhat more authority to the central government, and to the executive. TEC's governance (correct me if I'm wrong) has never evolved to something more central or which endows more in the PB. That's why the answer, the head is the General Convention is often given. But, as a practical matter, if your head only meets infrequently, can it really be the head -- the organ that keeps the blood flowing, the lungs breathing, etc.? Does it delegate its authority for the times when it's not meeting? Can Constitution and Canons, and the legislation of General Convention do that?

I suggest that there is no formal head, much like the UK has no written constitution. And yet it does have an informal head. How this works is decided by no one, but it should operate with the powers delegated, and responsibilities determined by Constitution and Canons, and the legislation of General Convention.

But then there are things that an "unwritten" head cannot address, and must await General Convention. Such as whether to sign the Anglican Covenant. For TEC the clear answer is only General Convention can decide. The PB cannot decide, nor can the dioceses act unilaterally. For other provinces of the communion the answer will be different -- for some it could be that province's Archbishop. Or that that Archbishop could call a meeting of a synod just for that purpose. (This, I recall, was a question that was raised during the time when the covenant was being drafted.)

Marshall, with all due respect, I disagree. The question invites a thoughtful response, what you call a teaching moment rather than our tendency to be facile and meet the question with a response that may leave the person with misconceptions about TEC, which the question as asked will do if answered without many qualifications.

When asked such a question, by reframing the question, precisely by asking "What sort of answer are you looking for?", we are given the possibility of not only answering about the What of our structuring but also answering Why it is "no one" is a final authority in this Church.

We complain in this Church a lot about all of those other Christians who it seems to me at least have a message about Christ, even if it is one with which we disagree. As Dr Crew noted, few people join a Church because of how it is structured. This question offers the possibility for us to present not only our structures but also our Why, How it is we understand Jesus Christ.

Without touching on OLJC's role, I think the answer to who is in charge is GC. In past years the office of the PB has tried to change itself into a primatial office, which seems quite as dangerous to me as the Primates Meetings trying to become some sort of Curia Lite.