The sad story continues

Each day seems to bring more news of the disintegration of the worldwide Anglican communion. One day it is the American Episcopal Church thumbing its collective nose at the communion and the Bible. The next it is the Church of England appointing and then un-appointing a practicing homosexual. Last year it was the Roman Catholic church welcoming disgruntled Anglicans by offering them a refuge of orthodoxy. Rome of all places! The latest comes from the Church of England where a compromise designed to placate more conservative members over the issue of ordaining women appears to have fallen apart:

LONDON — The Church of England moved another step closer to an unbridgeable schism between traditionalists and reformers on Saturday when its General Synod, or parliament, rejected a bid by the archbishop of Canterbury to strike a compromise over the ordination of women bishops aimed at preserving the increasingly fragile unity of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

The rejection of proposals aimed at accommodating those who oppose women bishops appeared to strike a serious blow to the authority of the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, whose position as archbishop of Canterbury makes him the spiritual leader of the Communion. Although he has a long-established reputation as a liberal on theological issues, the archbishop, 60, has spent much of his seven years as the Anglican leader seeking to fashion compromises with traditionalists over the role of women and gays as priests and bishops.

But the votes on Saturday appeared to have blocked, perhaps conclusively, a settlement under which hard-line traditionalists might have accepted the appointment of women bishops. The proposals would have provided for a “complementary” male bishop with independent powers, working alongside a woman bishop, to minister to traditionalists unwilling to accept a woman as the head of their diocese.

I am afraid that Rowan Williams is fighting an impossible battle, trying to bridge the gap between those who insist on complete recognition of women and homosexuals as “priests” and bishops, rejecting all claims of Biblical authority in the matter, and those who wish to remain in the Anglican communion but refuse to compromise on homosexual and female ministers. I have to say that the compromise proposed strikes me as silly and misguided. Women can be bishops but only if they have a male bishop to minister to those who reject women in that role? How is that supposed to be satisfactory in any sense to anyone? Conservatives are still going to have an issue with the church ordaining a female bishop and liberals are going to see this as an insult, making women “second class” bishops.

This firestorm is fed by two misconceptions. One is a misconception on the purpose and role of elders. The second is the misconception of the role and authority of the Scriptures in the life of the church.

The role of elder is wrapped up deeply in church tradition but originally is derived from Biblical teaching. That seems to go without saying but given how divergent the views of elders in the church are, it bears repeating. Simply speaking from a Biblical standpoint, elders are men who are recognized as leaders, because of the manner of their lives, who serve the church body. They are not rulers or the heads of organizations or a special class of Christians over and above others. They are men we are to imitate and emulate. As soon as you start dressing elders up in gaudy robes and addressing them by titles like “The Most Reverend Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury”, you have completely lost the role and function of elders in the local church. I have a hard time reading the New Testament and picturing Peter or Paul wearing a priests collar, a miter, an ornate embroidered robe and carrying around a fancy scepter. I picture Paul as wearing rough clothes that befits a man who works hard for a living and not bothering to dress up in his “Sunday best” or wearing vestments when he met with the church.

The Bible is equally clear that elders are recognized from among the men in the church. It is more the case that male leadership in the church is far less an issue of privilege (i.e. only men can be recognized as elders) and more so an issue of responsibility (men are called to lead the church and the home). The Bible is less interested in preventing women from being recognized as elders and leaders in the gathered church (although I believe it does state that restriction clearly and boldly) as opposed to emphasizing that men are to shoulder the burden of serving and leading when the church is gathered. A lot of what women have traditionally taken on in the church is to fill a vacuum left by men. For example, in Acts 6:1-6 (which for the record is not speaking about deacons), we see men being charged with ensuring that widows are being taken care of in the daily distribution. In most churches we have been involved with, it is the women who make sure that people who need meals are taken care of. That is not to imply that women have no role of leadership in the church or the family but their role is different. No one would argue (I hope!) that a young woman can learn more about being a wife from a middle-aged elder than she could from an older, mature Christian woman. Being a keeper in the home is every bit as important as any other role in the church. We don’t need to try to “break down barriers” for women to be recognized as elders, we need to stop denigrating the roles women are called to as if being a wife and mother is somehow shameful or something women should rise above and start calling on all of the men of the church to be faithful to the calling they have been given by God.

The other issue and the bigger one is the role of Scripture in the church and this is a problem not just among more liberal denominations like the Anglicans. Many very orthodox, conservative groups that cherish the Bible place the Word in a secondary position behind tradition and pragmatism when it comes to church practice. Even churches that claim to hold to the “Regulative Principle of Worship” depend more on tradition than Scripture. Having said that, organizations like the Anglican Communion seem to take this to an extreme. When you combine a rejection of Biblical authority, place an overemphasis on church tradition and embrace all manner of doctrinal mischief, it is hard to place an organization like this anywhere with the Body of Christ. Certainly there are faithful Christians within the Anglican Communion, especially it seems in non-Western nations, but by and large the organization cannot be recognized as functioning in any way that would be recognizable as a church as defined by Scripture.

It is easy to pick on the mainline denominations and lament their decline but many of the same forces are already eating away at the foundations of conservative denominations and groups as well. Clericalism, religious ritual, traditionalism, etc. are found in similar measures in most churches. As I survey the religious landscape in America, the question in my mind is when, not if, the institutional church will completely collapse across the country. I believe that day is far closer than many people assume. I fully expect that the visible church as we understand it will largely cease to exist in my children’s lifetime. I see our mission as parents is to prepare our kids to be witnesses for Christ in a post-institutional Christian world instead of training them to be good church members. They will not have the “benefit” of thousands of churches to pick from nor will they be able to exhibit “faithfulness by attendance”. The future of Christian witness in America is going to look a lot more like the 1st century than the 20th century and the wisdom of that 1st century church is going to be more important than ever.