THE ESSENCE OF EPISCOPAL CHURCH ORGANIZATION is the power of bishops over people and
property, and there is a close link to episcopal wealth too, which is one reason the
Puritans objected to it. The modern American Episcopalians are a good example, not
dissimilar to the 18th-century Anglicans whose secular comfort and religious sloppiness
lead to the Methodist exodus. Diane Knippers has a good article,
"The Anglican Mainstream: It's not where Americans might think," (Weekly Standard,
8/25/2003, 8,47). She notes that:
Sadly, there are few precedents for orderly separation in church history. The hard truth
is that church fights, legal and otherwise, are usually bitter. Much depends on whether
Episcopal leaders are willing to give up property and income. So far--as in Marx's day--
those who tolerate all sorts of theological and ethical innovations appear to be rigid
fundamentalists when it comes to defending traditional church organizational structures
and budgets.
Conservative Episcopalians hope that the Anglican Communion will take the unprecedented
step of establishing an alternative Anglican Church in North America, which their
dioceses and parishes might join. They also hope that this can be accomplished
amicably--particularly that conservative parishes in liberal dioceses will be allowed to
keep their property.
She starts, and I will end, by alluding Karl Marx and the 1867 Preface to
the German edition of Capital:
In the domain of Political Economy, free scientific inquiry meets not merely the same
enemies as in all other domains. The peculiar nature of the materials it deals with,
summons as foes into the field of battle the most violent, mean and malignant passions
of the human breast, the Furies of private interest. The English Established Church,
e.g., will more readily pardon an attack on 38 of its 39 articles than on 1/39 of its
income. Now-a-days atheism is culpa levis, as compared with criticism of existing
property relations.
The liberal denominations don't care about their pastors' beliefs, but they do care
about money. They talk of inter-denominationalism, but they are fiercely devoted to
retaining the assets of the particular denomination rather than allowing local control.
One frequent comment about the Episcopalians is how absurd it is for them to be so
liberal, given that they lose membership as a result. It's not absurd at all. From their
point of view, fewer members is a good thing. It means more money for those members who
remain. This is especially true if the lost members are people who would want to use the
money for religious purposes rather than political or charitable ones, or if the lost
members are "high-maintenance" members who come in for counselling, want choirs
organized, critize sermons, and so forth. The ideal member is one who contributes money,
but never shows up in church. But even contributions are not too important--- the
denomination is wealthy enough to coast without them. That's the Episcopalians now and
the Anglicans in 1790 (and today, for that matter, in England).
By the way, that Marx quote is on target more generally too. Most people don't care about beliefs: they care about more selfish things, and principally about money. They may also care about their children, at least when the children are little, but they don't have beliefs they are willing to pay a lot for. It's much easier to get most people involved in a battle over rezoning than one over religion. (Some people---many, though still a minority--- are exceptions, to be sure, but selfishness is amazingly dominant.)
[ http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/03.08.24a.htm ]
To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/0.rasmusen.htm.