Church leadership
I'm reading _A History of the English Church and People_ by the Venerable Bede. It's an overview of English history from the end of Roman occupation to about 600 AD, and then a blow-by-blow of Christianization in the British Isles from 600 AD to about 730 AD. This guy was archbishop in this town, and he ordained this other guy bishop in this other town in another kingdom. The island of Britain had no less than 7 or 8 separate kingdoms. This pagan king attacked the neighboring Christian kingdoms. His son converted to Christianity, which he allowed, but told his subjects, "If you're going to follow this god, do it sincerely. I hate hypocrites!"
The bishop in Rome sent a pallium, symbol of his approval, to the bishops on the island of Britain, with a letter giving permission to ordain bishops as needed, because of the difficulty and time required to travel to Rome and back. I looked up how long it takes to walk from Rome to Brittany; it's 380 hours now, with good roads and trails. At 12 hours walking per day, that's 32 days, an entire month. Then they would cross the British channel. And that's one way; a messenger from Britain to Rome would take 2 months round trip, not counting time for the bishop of Rome to make a decision based on incomplete information.
And yet, the Venerable Bede, writing in 731 AD, considered the bishop of Rome as the authority for all Christians in Britain. He goes out of his way to condemn the Scots for celebrating Easter at the wrong time, though they had the right season and they celebrated Jesus Christ's resurrection, as they should. He reluctantly admits that for a long time they had no communication with Rome and therefore when the bishop of Rome ruled when Easter should be celebrated, they didn't know it. He tells how priests sent from Rome to the Scots had to persuade them to change the date of Easter's celebration. He doesn't say they were mean about it, but they were definitely persistent.
I read an article about conflict between leaders of the Orthodox church in Moscow and leaders of the Orthodox church in Ukraine, which until 2019 was under the Patriarch of Moscow. The Patriarch of Kyiv is officially no longer subordinate to Moscow, though there are many ordained priests and congregations who still follow Russian leadership. There are hard feelings and accusations of divided loyalty on both sides. It reminds me of concerns over whether Mitt Romney would be free of undue religious influence if elected president.
So my question to you is: what's your feeling about where the line between church and state should be? I appreciate my church's counsel to be involved in politics, learn the laws and the issues, and choose wisely. But my church does not tell people whom to vote for, nor does it shill for any particular government. It's based in the United States of America, but operates worldwide and tries to keep good relations with all the many jurisdictions where members live.
Who sets rules for your congregation, for your denomination?
Mine is led by a prophet, two counselors, and the Quorum of 12 Apostles, chosen from all over the world. They tend to be English speaking simply because the church started in America and grew in English speaking places first, but several of them are bilingual. They set rules for the entire church; there are 13 Articles of Faith and four main books of scripture, plus current counsel issued every six months at General Conference. The counsel runs the gamut from personal to family to financial to community issues, but exact application is up to each member. We are instructed to listen to the Holy Ghost in making decisions.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is remarkably even-handed in working with governments, I think. It tries to work within the frameworks put in place by those in charge of each part of the world, as long as those frameworks do not prevent people from worshiping God. I'm not sure how I would feel if my church were splitting over a change in government. My leaders are both more free, not tied to the power structures of one government or one area, and more restrictive, as in, their instructions are applicable no matter where you are in the world. There's not a power struggle between the leaders in each country and the leaders over all.
