fable, you have lured me into thinking about something that I haven't paid any attention to for several years now - christianity.
To cover some basic ground first, since I've seen this raised in a post or two in this thread: celibate clergy - in fact, the whole concept of "clergy" in the first place - didn't really appear on the scene in christianty until after the council called by Constantine in the 4th century. This probably represented the real birth of the Roman church (my term for the RCC) as it was recognized and protected by secular government. I've combed through the christian bible (yes, even the Vulgate) in the past looking for "scriptural support" for the concept of celibate servants of a church and failed to find any. The only words even remotely associated to this were Paul's words which maintained that (I paraphrase) "it would be best if everyone could be like us (Paul and the entourage he traveled with), but not everyone can. Therefore, it is best for such a person that they marry, and in so doing avoid sinning and risking the destruction of their soul. Still, it would be better if they could be like me, denying my flesh daily."
The majority of the apostles and their immediate successors were married, as was the custom of the day (which stemmed from the Judaic background, where the priests and levites were certainly always married, since the priesthood was an inherited line, supposedly descending from Aaron).
The words of Christ about sin were actually very harsh, and supposedly part of what maddened the sect of Pharisees and patrician priests because his teachings made them out to be "sinners" and the children of the devil (not my words, just what I read). According to what you read, Christ taught that lusting after another man's wife in your thoughts was breaking the Law. Envying your neighbor of his possessions, and desiring them, was breaking the Law. You didn't have to lift a finger to steal a thing...or have an affair. You were already a sinner in the eyes of God, who alone knows the secrets of your heart.
Before anyone thinks they can flame me over the above, that was simply the result of my reading over the christian bible as a person who was not raised going to a church. I picked it up out of curiosity and began reading it. I wanted to find out for myself what all the hooplah was about. I found out, and didn't like it.
But some churches are considerably more hierarchal and led from the top down than others...
Actually, all of the large, internationally known and present ones are just that, including the Anglicans and Episcopalians. They are no exception. They take their bishops very, very seriously. Ministers are a different consideration altogether to the Anglicans and their relations. There's more historical and scriptural latitude to being a minister as opposed to what there is to being a blameless, upstanding, widely respected bishop (the scriptures only require that a minister be well-learned and willing to devote all of his time to assisting the bishops, such as Stephen in Acts; Paul, however, writes out to the letter the requirements of a bishop). This they hold more in common with the Eastern Orthodox, who strive to represent a christianity that they believe is more like the
pre-Roman church...that is, what was before the 4th century. And in a way, they are academically correct, since the highest authorities after the last apostle died were their successors, the bishops they supposedly appointed in the various geographical areas of their day: throughout Asia Minor and the near East.
Myself, I do believe that the Anglicans, like the Presbyterians, Baptists, and others, will splinter through this schism. Every Christian denomination experiences cycles of schisms...and this has resulted in the myraid of christian denominations that you find today. To verify this, why not walk down the street in any American town of decent size, and you will see several christian churches of different denominations across the street from each other. Or, just look through the local phone book.
