RECTOR SELECTOR
By Frederick Meekins
May 31, 2001

G.K. Chesterton noted that the problem when people no longer believe in God is not so much that that they will no longer believe in anything but that the possibility exists for them to believe in everything that comes along. Being that the Bible is God's revelation to mankind, nearly the same degree of theological confusion results when this corrosive kind of skepticism is directed at His word rather than as a frontal assault upon the personage of God Almighty instead. Often the result is an inversion of moral norms and the arbitrary exercise of power without reference to any kind of eternal standard.

One denomination in which the religious observer can see these issues being played out in real life is the Episcopal Church with a concrete example available in the Diocese of Washington. In this particular ecclesiastical jurisdiction it is apparently okay to embrace revolutionary theological innovations but inappropriate to uphold many of the traditions of the Christian faith.

According to the Washington Times, a major development is festering at Christ Church in Acokeek, Maryland that may expose just how petty and fickle the leadership of this denomination has become.

Reverend Samuel L. Edwards has come under a scathing degree of scrutiny there regarding his positions on matters of ecclesiology or church administration. Rev. Edwards opposes the ordination of women.

As such, this steps on the toes of Washington's female bishop Jane Dixon. It may come as a surprise, but it is not the liberal proponents of toleration and enlightenment advocating compromise in this dispute.

Reverend Edwards, while continuing to stand behind his convictions against female pastors, would agree to allowing Bishop Dixon to visit the congregation provided she did not administer communion. Such middle ground does not sit well with the lady bishop, claiming Edwards' obedience to her would be "limited".

The last time I checked, the only one owed unquestioning absolute obedience was Jesus Christ. Somehow I must have missed out on Bishop Dixon's monumental promotion.

According to the Washington Times, the presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church Frank Griswold supports Dixon's opposition by labeling Rev. Edwards a "schismatic" whom Griswold would not allow into his diocese if Griswold was a diocesan bishop.

Though it is an exegetical stretch, one could make a semi-plausible argument allowing for female clergy. Since passages such as I Timothy 2:12 ("...suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man...") and Galatians 3:28 ("There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ.") could possibly lead to a difference of opinion, shouldn't the Episcopal hierarchy allow for differing views on this subject if it is going to market the church as a bastion of theological tolerance since allowing women preachers rests on shakier hermeneutical grounds to begin with?

There are greater dangers arrayed against the spiritual health of the Episcopal Church than a single pastor adhering to the traditional understanding of certain Biblical passages. One would think that the Episcopal leadership could find bigger theological fish to fry being there are those within the denomination in general and the Washington Diocese in particular promoting perspectives blatantly opposed to God's Scriptural plan for mankind.

For while the current leadership of the Episcopal Church wants to brand pastors opposed to female ordination as heretics, those advocating homosexuality are given free rein and even run the show. At the heart of the Episcopal leadership's pro-homosexual efforts is Integrity USA.

According to the group's "Statement of Integrity Regarding Safe and/or Welcoming Congregations" available on their website, an "unsafe" church is one that claims to be traditional or orthodox in doctrine and dares to call sin "sin". Likewise, safe and healthy churches are those that do not dictate how God manifests His work in the world, instead advocating a kind of "theological pragmatism".

In other words, at such churches you can pretty much do as you want. One wonders why members of such congregations even bother to show up Sunday morning. Needless to say there is not much need for help in the nursery being that gays aren't exactly known for the highest birth rates.

The Integrity USA statement goes on to liken homosexuals to "God's canaries", their treatment serving as a barometer to the poison of injustice percolating throughout the air of society. This makes about as much sense as saying that God made drunks to warn us when the grape juice turns sour or that thieves exist to enforce compulsory charity.

While such sentiments do not represent the sentiments of all Episcopalians, they do represent those persecuting the God-fearing among their ranks such as Rev. Samuel Edwards.

One might say that the Washington Diocese is intricately "linked" with Integrity USA since a link without editorial clarification exists between the webpages of the Washington Diocese and Integrity USA.

Furthermore, at least one congregation in the Washington Diocese that I am aware of, St. George's in Glenn Dale, Maryland, is an unabashedly homosexual congregation, with the pastor accounted among the membership of this particular lifestyle. The church's webpage even lists the name of the pastor's male "companion".

Romans 3:10 says, "There is none righteous, no not one..." Most of us struggle to keep our most shameful transgressions between ourselves and God. Everyone struggles with sin, but the line has been crossed and there is something seriously wrong when these sins come to be seen as some kind of virtue to be proud of differentiating the individual in a positive way from the remainder of the population. Can you imagine a church webpage proudly announcing to the world the name of the pastor's mistress or what liquor store he prefers to frequent?

Unfortunately, the leadership of the Washington Diocese does not seem content to let these excursions into apostasy remain confined to a few loony congregations. It seems to be their intent to drag down any parish they can sink their fangs into. According to the Times article, the diocesan placement officer, Rev. Ted Karpf, has been accused of actively stacking the pastoral deck against conservatives in favor of liberal and homosexual candidates.

Most Americans would no doubt find this example of the inmates running the asylum appalling. However, heretics wielding power are hardly anything new for the Episcopal Church.

Frankly, one can find little difference between the thought of retired Bishop Shelby Spong and Madalyn Murray O'Hare. But whereas Mrs. O'Hare excelled in presenting her atheism in blunt terms, the Episcopal apostates have done a better job in packaging their unbelief in terms more palatable to an unsuspecting religious public.

Much of this nonsense once paraded itself under the banner of the "Death of God" movement. Episcopal thinkers such as Rev. James A. Pike contributed to this philosophical trend that sought to have its theological cake and eat it too in the sense that these thinkers wanted the absolute autonomy found in atheism while maintaining the sense of psychological security provided by religious language.

According to Death of God ramblings, God is not the supernatural being found in the Bible creating, ordering, and sustaining the universe while overseeing the eternal well-being of mankind. Rather, God is simply the existence of the universe itself. And even if God was more a personality like the deity postulated by traditional Judeo-Christian theism, like a grown child, man no longer needs the love and oversight of a Heavenly Father. Everyone is free to hoe their own existential road.

Such a worldview might allow certain ecclesiastical authorities to excuse their personal shortcomings and to justify their socially questionable agendas. However, in the end such a nihilistic free-for-all ultimately undermines the authority of those endeavoring to establish such controlled anarchy as the prevailing epistemological dogma.

For if one denies clearly revealed Biblical doctrines, on what grounds do you invoke others?

For example, Bishop Dixon contends she cannot allow Rev. Edwards to assume the rectory of Christ Church because his obedience to her would allegedly be limited. But if Bishop Dixon and her clerical cohorts are going to take a flippant attitude towards Biblical admonitions not to their liking, then why should Rev. Edwards be required to yield to their baseless authority?

The power of churches and that of their administrative prelates possesses no valid authority apart from where these institutions adhere to Scripture. While unity within the body of Christ is essential, that unity above all must be based on absolute truth or it is based on some kind of spiritual tyranny even if such rule is not of a violent nature but merely reverence paid to human power for power's sake.

William Lind of the Free Congress Foundation begins his novel Victoria set in the year 2050 with the burning at the stake of the female Episcopal Bishop of Maine. While such an action should probably best remain in the realm of literary symbolism, such a metaphor does serve as a powerful call to action.

Whether God-fearing Episcopalians organize to drive these malfeasant "churchpeople" from office or withdrawal from the denomination all together as some have speculated the Christ Church congregation might do is a matter of individual conscience. But regardless of one's personal decision in reference to this vexing issue, each and every Christian is obligated to stand against this kind of iniquity being propagated in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Previous Page