After last week's pointless meeting of the pointy hats in Canterbury, I am left wondering if we really need Archbishops, Primates, or an Anglican Communion at all.
The Anglican Communion's loose structure and lack of discipline are often touted as its greatest strengths by progressives and revisionists. Their goals have certainly been facilitated by the current "instruments of communion" and the failure to effectively discipline and correct Churches that have departed from Anglican tradition and the teachings found in the Bible.
Who actually operates those instruments of communion? The guys in the pointy hats, for the most part, are the ones running the show.
Bishops and their like have been with us since the earliest days of the Church. But Archbishops and Popes maybe not so much.
1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are the only times in the NT when "bishops" are directly referred to, and some Bibles translate the Greek word, "episcopas", which more likely means "overseer", to mean "bishop."
1 Timothy 3 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
So we do need "Bishops" that meet Paul's criteria, but history is replete with bad examples, and Paul himself had to write strong letters to his churches when he learned that they were going astray. To date, no Church has come up with the perfect solution to the problem of oversight.
The Anglican Communion certainly does not have a Paul at the helm. Their titular overseer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has no real power of oversight except when deciding who comes to a meeting of provincial leaders.
Just look at how recent events were handled by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Anglican Church of Canada, the Episcopal Church (USA), and the Scottish Episcopal Church have all altered 2000 years of teaching on homosexual activity and were still invited to Canterbury to meet with the rest of the Anglican Primates.
The Anglican Church in North America, which has not changed the Church's teaching, was not invited to the gathering and is considered by the Archbishop of Canterbury to not be part of the Anglican Communion.
The invitations say a lot about oversight in the organization we call the Anglican Communion. When those who flaunt their disregard for what is revealed in scripture are honored at the banquet while those deserving a seat at the table are left out on the street, there is a serious problem.
Let me speculate as to why things seem to work out the way they do in this organization.
Imagine you are having a family reunion in this day and age of blended families, divorces, and unwed mothers, and you have to decide whom to invite and who to exclude.
Should you invite the cousin, brother, or sister who had numerous adulterous affairs and is now legally re-married? "But that is family!", you say, and you are stuck with them so of course, you will extend an invitation. Many in the Anglican Communion feel this way about their wayward Provinces.
But what if you change the hypothetical to a team meeting in which the game plan for next week's contest is to be put together? Should you invite the players who don't follow the playbook and are busy writing their own rules and making new playbooks? No, of course, you will not even let them into the meeting room unless they admit that what they are doing is harmful to the team. A few leaders in the Anglican Communion feel this way about the Provinces thay are approving of same-sex marriages and blessings, as well as gender-neutral language and are revising their prayer books to reflect the change in the game plan.
Are we a "team" or are we a "family"? That is the crux of the problem. Christians traditionally refer to each other as brothers and sisters in Christ so "family" would appear to have the upper hand. But are we still bound to someone as a brother or sister when they change traditions, coming up with unChristian innovations, and leading their children astray through false teachings? Again, looking to Paul and the problems he encountered in the early Church, we find the answer, and the answer is "No", they are to be treated as tax collectors and Gentiles (Matthew 18:17).
In this day and age, we have grown accustomed to dysfunctional and broken families, but this is not to be accepted as the ideal towards which we should strive. Unfortunately, dysfunction is exactly what the Anglican Communion as overseen by the Archbishop of Canterbury and a large number of Primates seem to admire as they conspire to create a sense of unity where there is none.
We need Bishops and maybe even Archbishops, but they need to be true to the job description or they should beware,
I am just not sure if we should call the new Communion "Anglican". I don't want any association with the current overseers in Canterbury.
The Anglican Communion's loose structure and lack of discipline are often touted as its greatest strengths by progressives and revisionists. Their goals have certainly been facilitated by the current "instruments of communion" and the failure to effectively discipline and correct Churches that have departed from Anglican tradition and the teachings found in the Bible.
Who actually operates those instruments of communion? The guys in the pointy hats, for the most part, are the ones running the show.
Bishops and their like have been with us since the earliest days of the Church. But Archbishops and Popes maybe not so much.
1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are the only times in the NT when "bishops" are directly referred to, and some Bibles translate the Greek word, "episcopas", which more likely means "overseer", to mean "bishop."
1 Timothy 3 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
3 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.Titus 1
5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: 6 if any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 but a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; 9 holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.Paul clearly had a local structure in mind with one or more ordained overseers in a particular region such as in Crete. No mention of an "Arch-overseer" can be found unless one considers Paul to be the overseer of overseers.
So we do need "Bishops" that meet Paul's criteria, but history is replete with bad examples, and Paul himself had to write strong letters to his churches when he learned that they were going astray. To date, no Church has come up with the perfect solution to the problem of oversight.
The Anglican Communion certainly does not have a Paul at the helm. Their titular overseer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has no real power of oversight except when deciding who comes to a meeting of provincial leaders.
The Anglican Church in North America, which has not changed the Church's teaching, was not invited to the gathering and is considered by the Archbishop of Canterbury to not be part of the Anglican Communion.
The invitations say a lot about oversight in the organization we call the Anglican Communion. When those who flaunt their disregard for what is revealed in scripture are honored at the banquet while those deserving a seat at the table are left out on the street, there is a serious problem.
Let me speculate as to why things seem to work out the way they do in this organization.
Imagine you are having a family reunion in this day and age of blended families, divorces, and unwed mothers, and you have to decide whom to invite and who to exclude.
Should you invite the cousin, brother, or sister who had numerous adulterous affairs and is now legally re-married? "But that is family!", you say, and you are stuck with them so of course, you will extend an invitation. Many in the Anglican Communion feel this way about their wayward Provinces.
But what if you change the hypothetical to a team meeting in which the game plan for next week's contest is to be put together? Should you invite the players who don't follow the playbook and are busy writing their own rules and making new playbooks? No, of course, you will not even let them into the meeting room unless they admit that what they are doing is harmful to the team. A few leaders in the Anglican Communion feel this way about the Provinces thay are approving of same-sex marriages and blessings, as well as gender-neutral language and are revising their prayer books to reflect the change in the game plan.
Are we a "team" or are we a "family"? That is the crux of the problem. Christians traditionally refer to each other as brothers and sisters in Christ so "family" would appear to have the upper hand. But are we still bound to someone as a brother or sister when they change traditions, coming up with unChristian innovations, and leading their children astray through false teachings? Again, looking to Paul and the problems he encountered in the early Church, we find the answer, and the answer is "No", they are to be treated as tax collectors and Gentiles (Matthew 18:17).
In this day and age, we have grown accustomed to dysfunctional and broken families, but this is not to be accepted as the ideal towards which we should strive. Unfortunately, dysfunction is exactly what the Anglican Communion as overseen by the Archbishop of Canterbury and a large number of Primates seem to admire as they conspire to create a sense of unity where there is none.
We need Bishops and maybe even Archbishops, but they need to be true to the job description or they should beware,
The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops cemented into place by Archbishops.And yes, we need a larger Communion, but the current set up is broken because it has been failed time and time again to uphold the Gospel of Christ.
I am just not sure if we should call the new Communion "Anglican". I don't want any association with the current overseers in Canterbury.
Posts
Well, "Anglican" refers to the English-speaking church traditions of the 16th and 17th centuries more than it does to the Archbishop. And while it's a reformed church tradition, it draws heavily on the English church traditions which came before.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the term "Anglican" is that so many groups with divergent gospels claim it right now and the leading claim goes to the CofE which is well on its way to Gomorrah. Presbyterians and Baptists and Lutherans all face the same problem. A pewsitter has to read the fine print before they can know what they are getting into.
DeleteIn the US, even among those Anglican groups who hold traditional views on marriage, churchmanship can diverge widely. Some bear little resemblance to traditional Anglican worship.
DeleteThere hasn't been an ABC worth his salt since 1170.
ReplyDeleteThat would be Saint Thomas of Canterbury.
Delete