Baptist bishop installed in Virginia
According to the story found here.
There are some interesting nuggets in here that one wishes would be explored more, but of course that wouldn't be the case in a brief article for a regular newspaper. I am particularly prone to ask certain theological and ecclesiological questions:
1. Was Bishop Edmonds "consecrated" in the sense that this office is understood as a higher, or at least different, ordination? Or is this simply an installation to a different office that is already validated by a prior ordination?
2. When leaders of the church asked to make Edmonds bishop, how did they understand the office and what did they think they were changing?
3. Edmonds speaks of a move from a "democratic" to a "theocratic" process. How does his elevation to a bishopric change the structure of discernment and decision-making at St. Mark's? How do he and the members of the congregation see the role and value of the average "layperson" in discerning the mind of Christ?
4. Edmonds received the imposition of hands from ministers of various denominations. How do he and his congregation understand the place of his office within the broken unity of the Church catholic? Does he intend for his office to exercise an ecumenical function?
5. Of which Baptist denomination is St. Mark's a member congregation? How does his office fit within the workings of that denomination, or will it fit in any way at all? How are denominational leaders and sister churches reacting to this move?
There are some interesting nuggets in here that one wishes would be explored more, but of course that wouldn't be the case in a brief article for a regular newspaper. I am particularly prone to ask certain theological and ecclesiological questions:
1. Was Bishop Edmonds "consecrated" in the sense that this office is understood as a higher, or at least different, ordination? Or is this simply an installation to a different office that is already validated by a prior ordination?
2. When leaders of the church asked to make Edmonds bishop, how did they understand the office and what did they think they were changing?
3. Edmonds speaks of a move from a "democratic" to a "theocratic" process. How does his elevation to a bishopric change the structure of discernment and decision-making at St. Mark's? How do he and the members of the congregation see the role and value of the average "layperson" in discerning the mind of Christ?
4. Edmonds received the imposition of hands from ministers of various denominations. How do he and his congregation understand the place of his office within the broken unity of the Church catholic? Does he intend for his office to exercise an ecumenical function?
5. Of which Baptist denomination is St. Mark's a member congregation? How does his office fit within the workings of that denomination, or will it fit in any way at all? How are denominational leaders and sister churches reacting to this move?
Labels: Baptists
This is disorderly and unorthodox. It is seems little more than a hankering for titles.
He could have chosen to buy the title "Dr." or make up the title "apostle" out of thin air, but instead he chose "bishop" for which he wouldn't have to pay, or study, or be recognized by any authority other than the congregation which by his own declaration he tells what to do. This is more demagogic than democratic.
How can this even remotely be conceived of as a valid ecclesial office of bishop? In what way is this any different than simply being the pastor of the church?
A man choosing himself as bishop? It violates Scripture, tradition, and any imaginable church polity I can conceive of. It is the church of "Me, Myself, and I"--the American democratic trinity!
How American! How democratic! How liberal! How disorderly! How unorthodox!
Posted by
Curtis Freeman |
Tuesday, October 09, 2007 11:42:00 AM
Notice in the original story the comments about how this practice is becoming, if not common, at least not unusual. There is a group called "Full Gospel Baptists", under the leadership of Paul Morton, which has been promoting this concept, and which has organized itself along jurisdictional lines with various pastors being named as prelates. Contrary to what the article says about deacons and trustees normally having the power in Baptist churches, I see a growing trend toward pastoral authority. It ranges from this Full Gospel movement in black Baptists to the "pastor as king" mentality espoused by some white Southern Baptists. I agree that it is irreconcilable with normative principles of Baptist polity.
Posted by
Joseph |
Thursday, October 18, 2007 7:24:00 AM
Post a Comment