Two weeks ago the bishops of the Anglican Church voted to allow women to become bishops. The vote comes after many weeks of controversy within the Anglican Communion over the issue, with so-called "liberal" supporters and so called "conservative" detractors. The event also follows the 2003 controversy concerning the ordination of the bishop in the US Episcopal Church (a branch of Anglicanism), Robinson, who is described as "openly gay"- which is a confusing and unhelpful phrase.
Following the vote to allow women bishops, arguments and discussions from both sides began to emerge. Some "conservative" bishops even expressed a desire to return to communion with the Catholic Church, even to the point of bringing whole congregations of parishioners with them. Whether or not that is a possibility remains to be seen. But the idea that there are some within the Anglican Church who view a return to Rome as a solution to the problems that are dividing their church does get to the heart of the matter.
The vote to allow women to be bishops really has nothing to do with whether or not women should be bishops. And the allowance of an "openly gay" man in America to become a bishop really has nothing to do with the debate surrounding homosexuality. These issues, when they are simply debated and discussed under the rubrics of popular vocabulary, i.e. "liberal," "conservative," "vote," etc., simply become political issues and the bishops become politicians. The "votes" that the bishops cast are seen as an exercise in democracy rather than a prayerful casting of lots. Casting of lots is not a form of democracy; well, it's not supposed to be. It is at least something resembling cleromancy and at most something resembling divine decree.
The office of Bishop certainly has political elements but the temptation to practice the office as primarily a political post has certainly lured some historical figures. Many American Catholic bishops of the last thirty to forty years have opted for the more political route, leaving their flocks searching for shepherds. But from the beginning it was not so. More often than not, bishops carry out their duties because they believe they are representative of the apostles and that their primary mission is not to maintain political order but rather to preach and teach Jesus Christ. I imagine that like the Catholic Church, a majority of Anglican bishops are attempting to carry out their episcopacy with the goal of bringing Christ to their flocks and to the world. But the bishops, having governing responsibilities as well, exercise that governance in the name of...well, in the name of whom?
The Catholic Church has always maintained that the Pope and the bishops in communion with him exercise their "power" in the name of Jesus Christ. By virtue of the office of Peter and the office of the Bishops, the Church exercises its power in the name of God. Now, you can think the Church crazy or arrogant or narrow-minded for claiming something like that, but if the Catholic Church is not carrying out the will of God then it is simply carrying out the will of human beings. If the Church is not the visible reality of God working in the world, if it is not the sacrament of salvation, then it is meaningless. If the Catholic Church did not claim to be God's handiwork then everything she says is rubbish and a sham. Therefore the only reason I would give an ear to the Church at all is if she claimed some kind of divine beginnings. Otherwise, she is not worth a minute of my time.
But this is exactly what makes the Church credible and worth all of our minutes - that she claims divine ordinance. Most people who deny that the Church is divinely ordained do so with a claim to the same ordination. A man denies that the Church was founded by Christ but the man expects us to believe his word as divine. He uses the Gospels to argue against the Church but fails to see that it was the Church who told him that what he was reading was the Gospel. The Church does claim to speak in the name of Christ, and the bishops in communion with the Pope exercise their authority in his name as well.
Now the Anglican Church has that unfortunate historical nascency that places its authority to exercise ecclesial power in question. Henry VIII adopted total and supreme power over the Catholic Church in England in an attempt perhaps to take the keys from Peter, or really from Christ. Later monarchs would re-distribute that power among bishops, and retain some of it to one degree or another, but the keys would often not fit the locks. What changed after the Church in England became the Church of England was that spiritual authority instead of residing in a divine office, like the Pope or Bishop, resided now in a temporal office, like the King or Queen. This brings the question of authority to the fore. It is not really the vote allowing women to become bishops that matters. It is whether or not that vote has any correlation to divine decree. No doubt that because of their vote, women will become bishops in the Anglican Church. But do the Anglican bishops believe that they are exercising this power in the name of God? If so, where did they get this authority? From Jesus? From Peter? From the Pope? From Henry VIII?
Those within the Anglican Communion that look to the Catholic Church as a means of unifying and preserving the best of the Anglican tradition are looking to the right place. This may be too early to see any real steps towards a reunion of Canterbury and Rome, but at least this difficult time for Anglicans may help to open their eyes to what history and the Holy Spirit can teach us: the Church ought to be One.
0 Comments:
